
    HOWARD v. STATE.
    (No. 6456.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 16, 1921.)
    Criminal law <&wkey;804( I) — Requirement of written charge in felony prosecution is mandatory.
    The requirement of Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, arts. 735, 737a, 740, that a written charge distinctly setting forth the law applicable to the case shall be given in all felony eases, is mandatory; and failure to give a written charge is a substantial error.
    Appeal frortf District Court, Eastland County; E. A. Hill, Judge.
    Albert J. Howard was convicted of a felony theft, and he appeals.
    Reversed.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P J.

The conviction is for theft, a felony; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.

The facts are not before us.

No written charge was given the jury. This is complained of, and because of it the state confesses error. The statute commands, in several subdivisions, that in all felony cases the court shall deliver to the jury a written charge, which shall distinctly set forth the law applicable to the case. Code of Crim. Proc. arts. 735, 737a, and 740. This requirement' of the statute has been uniformly held mandatory. White’s Ann. Tex. Code Cr. Proc. p. 511, § 793; Vernon’s Texas Crim. Statutes, vol. 2, p. 500, and cases listed.

There was manifest error in failing to give, a written charge to the jury informing them of the law applicable to the offense and the punishment. Williams v. State, 18 Tex. App. 409; West v. State, 2 Tex. App. 209. The error, in our judgment, is a substantial one, calculated to injure the rights of the accused. Because of it, a reversal of the judgment is ordered. 
      <S=»For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     