Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 278
viii, 704 p. ; 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
278 . FRANCO V. THE STATE. [Term ot
Statement of the case.
be proved to have existed as a matter of fact, not merely as a
matter of law. (2 Bishop on Criminal Law, Sec. 113; do.,
Sec. 147-149.) " If no felony was committed, then the intent
"to commit the felony must be distinctly proved." (3 Greenleaf,
Sec. 82.) In the case at bar, there was no proof tending to
show that the defendant intended to commit any felony, much
less that he intended to commit the particular felony charged.
In the absence of any act done indicating what the intention
of the party was, no legal conviction could be had. A verdict
of "guilty" must be merely conjectural. The rule is ' that
" every person is presumed to have intended to do that which
" is the natural and probable consequence of his act;" but it
can go no further. When a particular intent is charged, there
must be proof of acts done which manifest an intention conforming
to such charge. There can be no presumption without-facts
on which to base it. A presumption is a conclusion
from facts proved. No act done in this case, if proved to have
been done to the satisfaction of the jury, manifests an intention
on the part of the defendant when he raised the window
sash to steal from the house rather than to commit some offense
on one or all of the inmates of the house. The presumption
of innocence can be overcome by proof of facts only.
These facts must show his guilt; no such proof was made in
this case; the verdict presumes an entry, not only with intent
to commit a felony, but with the intent to commit the particular
felony charged. Such administration of law is at variance
with the humane principles that characterize criminal jurisprudence
in the present age.
Geo. Clark, for State.
I. The entry in this case was sufficient. (Wharton, Am. Cr.
Law, § 1550; 2 Bishop, Am. Cr. Law, §§ 92, 95; 1 Russ. on
Crimes, p. 794.)
II. The intent may be inferred from the facts. (Wharton,
Am. Cr. Law, §§ 1600, 631-5, 639, 647-51, 725-31, 853.)
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/286/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .