Barnes v. State
1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 365, 272 S.W. 188, 100 Tex. Crim. 135 (1925)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant cannot be convicted of a crime if they participated in the criminal act without the requisite criminal intent, but instead acted with the sole purpose of assisting law enforcement in apprehending the other participants.
Facts:
- Barnes, a recent graduate of a detective school, believed he had fallen in with a group of men planning robberies in Dallas.
- Barnes informed Dallas business men and police authorities of the group's criminal plans, including a specific plan to rob a man named Thompson.
- Police officials told Barnes to accompany the men, gather information about their actions, and report back to them.
- On the advice of police, Barnes carried a pistol for protection and used a car to transport the group to the robbery.
- During the robbery of Thompson, Barnes stood by holding a pistol while another man, Lawrence, took the money.
- At Lawrence's command, Barnes disabled Thompson's vehicle by cutting the wires under the hood.
- Immediately following the robbery, Barnes went to police headquarters to report that the crime had been committed and that he had his share of the proceeds.
- After being released from an initial arrest, Barnes actively assisted the county sheriff in capturing Lawrence, one of the principal robbers.
Procedural Posture:
- Barnes was indicted by a grand jury for robbery.
- The case was tried in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County, where a jury convicted Barnes.
- The trial court sentenced Barnes to twenty-five years in the penitentiary.
- Barnes (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant who participates in the physical acts of a robbery possess the requisite criminal intent to be found guilty if his sole purpose for participating was to gather information to assist peace officers in apprehending the other culprits?
Opinions:
Majority - Lattimore, Judge
No. A defendant's participation in the acts of a crime does not result in criminal liability if the defendant lacked criminal intent and acted solely to assist law enforcement. The central question in this case is not Barnes's physical participation, which he admitted, but his intention. The record is devoid of any evidence suggesting Barnes intended to steal Thompson's money; instead, all evidence indicates he acted in good faith to assist police, with whom he was in constant communication. The trial court's jury instruction was erroneous because it conditioned acquittal on a finding that Barnes did not aid by act or gesture, thereby ignoring the crucial issue of his intent. A defendant's right to acquittal in such circumstances should depend entirely upon the matter of his intention, not his physical acts performed in service of that innocent intention.
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms the fundamental principle that criminal liability requires both a prohibited act (actus reus) and a guilty mind (mens rea). The court's decision clarifies that an individual acting as an informant or in an unofficial undercover capacity cannot be convicted if their intent is to aid law enforcement, even if they actively participate in the mechanics of the crime. This precedent protects those who cooperate with the police and ensures that juries are instructed to focus on the defendant's subjective intent rather than merely their physical conduct. It underscores that a conviction based on facts showing a complete lack of criminal intent is "intolerable."
