Scott v. State

<p>1. —Forgery—Statement of Facts—Bills of Exception—Transcript.</p> <p>Where the case was affirmed on account of the absence of a statement of facts and bills of exception, but it was afterwards shown that they had been inadvertently omitted from the transcript and a new transcript was made, the cause will be heard on its merits.</p> <p>2. —Same—Age of Defendant—Statutory Discretion.</p> <p>It is not sufficient that the minor knows the difference between good and evil or that he had the intelligence of.ordinary boys of his age, but the statutory discretion requires .that he should know the nature and illegality of the particular act constituting the offense. Wusnig v. State, 33 Texas, 652, and other cases.</p> <p>8.—Same—Rule Stated—Discretion—Habits, Etc.</p> <p>Discretion is not required to be proved by direct and positive testimony, but circumstances of education, habits of life, etc., may be proved so as to convince an intelligent jury whether defendant had the statutory discretion. Following Carr v. State, 24 Texas Crim. App., 552.</p> <p>4. —Same—Non-Age—Burden of Proof.</p> <p>Non-age must first be proved by defendant, and where he shows his age to be between nine and thirteen years, the burden shifts to the State. Following Wusnig v. State, 33 Texas, 652.</p> <p>5. —Same—Case Stated.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of forgery, defendant proved that he was under the age of ' thirteen, it devolved upon the State to show that he had sufficient discretion to understand .the illegality of the act, and failing in this, there was reversible error.</p>