
    BEGA v. STATE.
    (No. 4620.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 17, 1917.)
    1. Criminal Law <S=»1056(1) — Appeal-^Necessity or Exceptions — Refusal of Charges.
    Where there were no exceptions reserved to the charge at or before its reading to the jury, the refusal of two special charges requested cannot be reviewed.
    2. Criminal Law <®=»814(3) — Trial — Instructions — Support by Evidence.
    In a prosecution for burglary, a charge, unsupported by evidence, that if the testimony raised a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the door of the burglarized house was closed at the time of the alleged entry, and the jury should find defendant entered the house, they should acquit, was properly refused.
    3. Criminal Law <S=^814(3) — Trial — Instruction-Inapplicability to Facts.
    In a prosecution for burglary, the testimony showing that two persons were engaged, a requested charge, that to find a verdict of guilty on circumstantial evidence the jury must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant and no other committed the offense, was inapplicable to the facts, and properly refused.
    4. Burglary <S=3l6 — Commission of Offense With Another.
    If defendant, in connection with another, committed a burglary, he was guilty thereof equally with the other.
    Appeal from District Court, Runnels County; J. O. Woodward, Judge.
    M. Bega was convicted of burglary, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for tbe State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of burglary; bis punishment being assessed at two years’ confinement in tbe penitentiary.

There were no exceptions reserved to tbe charge at tbe time of or before same was read to the jury. Two special charges were requested, but refused by the court. If they could be considered, then we find there is nothing presented requiring a reversal by either charge. The first was to the effect that the court, was requested to instruct the jury that if the testimony raised a reasonable.doubt as to whether or not the door of the burglarized house was closed at the time of the alleged entry, and they should find defendant did enter the house, they should acquit him. There is no evidence supporting this charge, or requiring it. Two witnesses who testified, the alleged owner and his wife, state positively that the door was closed and fastened, and was entered during the night and property taken from the house. There seems, to be no evidence suggesting that the door was not closed. The second charge was to the effect that in order to find a verdict of guilty on circumstantial evidence the jury must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendaht and no other person committed the offense charged.

The charge is not applicable to- the facts, for the testimony show's that there w'ere two parties engaged in the burglary. Had there been but -one party engaged in it there might have been some force in appellant’s contention, but the charge as requested did not properly present that issue. It was not necessary for the jury to conclude that defendant alone burglarized the house when the facts showed there were two. On such state of facts if appellant, in connection with another, committed the burglary, he would be equally guilty; and under the facts the charge requested would be misleading. The evidence, we think, fully justified the finding of the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.  