TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Shaw v. State

M. E. Shaw v. the State

Shaw v. State, 91 S.W. 1087 (Tex. Crim. App. 1906)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 21, 1906
Docket
No. 3471.
Judges
Davids
Citations
91 S.W. 108749 Tex. Crim. 3791906 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 98
Headnotes
1. —Adultery—living Together—Charge Refused. Upon a trial for adultery there was no error in refusing a special charge to the effect that to constitute this offense the parties must have lived together as man and wife. It is only necessary that they live together and have carnal intercourse. 2. —Same—Misdemeanor—Special Charge. In misdemeanor cases the court should either give or refuse the charge asked, there is no error to refuse to give an incorrect requested instruction in misdemeanors.
Summary
The facts of this case will be found in Coons v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep. The opinion states the case.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Davids

DAVIDS OH, Presiding Judge.

This conviction was for adultery; and is a companion case to that of Coons v. State, decided at the present term. The charge is that appellant and Coons were committing adultery “by living together.” A special charge was requested to the effect that in order to constitute this offense as charged, “the parties must live together as man and wife,” which was refused by the court. It is not necessary that the parties should “live together as man and wife” in order to constitute adultery under this phase of the statute. Bird v. State, 27 Texas Crim. App., 635; Massey v. State, 3 Texas Ct. Rep., 598. It is only necessary that they live together and have intercourse; it need not be such a living together as man and wife. This being a misdemeanor, the court should either give or refuse the charge as asked; and in order to get the question properly before this court, such charge must be asked. It is not error for the trial court to refuse to give an incorrect requested instruction in misdemeanors.

The remaining questions are the same in this as in Coons v. State, recently decided. There being no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1914: 21931: 11934: 119142026peak 1914 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Gieseke147 N.W. 663 (Minn. 1914)
  2. Polous v. State36 S.W.2d 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 1931)
  3. Bodkins v. State172 S.W. 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1914)
  4. Adams v. State70 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 1934)

Most recent

  1. Adams v. State70 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 1934)
  2. Polous v. State36 S.W.2d 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 1931)
  3. Bodkins v. State172 S.W. 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1914)
  4. State v. Gieseke147 N.W. 663 (Minn. 1914)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list