## Facts

- Charlie Carr (defendant) and the prosecuting witness played a card game for money.
- After the game ended, Carr used force to make the prosecuting witness turn over the wager money.
- The prosecuting witness claimed the money belonged to him and reported the incident.
- Texas charged Carr with robbery.
- Carr claimed he had won the money in the card game and took it believing in good faith that he was entitled to it.
- At trial, Carr requested a jury instruction stating that robbery requires fraudulent intent and that, if he took the money under an honest claim of right, the jury must acquit.
- The trial court refused to give the requested instruction.
- Carr was convicted of robbery and sentenced to five years in prison.
- Carr appealed, arguing the jury should have been instructed on his claim-of-right theory.

## Issues

1. Whether robbery requires proof of fraudulent (felonious) intent in the taking.
2. Whether evidence that the defendant took the property under an honest claim of right, even if mistaken, negates the fraudulent-intent element of robbery.
3. Whether a defendant is entitled, upon request, to a jury instruction on claim of right when the evidence raises that defensive theory.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed Carr’s robbery conviction and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the trial court erred by refusing Carr’s requested instruction submitting fraudulent intent and the claim-of-right theory to the jury.
- Because the evidence raised a fact question on whether Carr took the money believing it was his winnings, the jury had to be instructed that such a good-faith belief would require acquittal of robbery.

## Legal Principles

- Robbery is not shown by force alone; the State must also prove a wrongful taking with fraudulent (felonious) intent.
- A bona fide claim of right to the specific property taken is inconsistent with fraudulent intent and therefore defeats a robbery charge if believed by the jury.
- When evidence raises a defensive theory that would negate an element of the offense, the defendant is entitled to a properly requested jury instruction presenting that theory for the jury’s consideration.

## Conclusion

Carr’s robbery conviction could not stand because the evidence supported his theory that he forcibly took the wager money believing in good faith it was his, and the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury that an honest claim of right negates the fraudulent intent required for robbery was reversible error.


Carr v. State, 116 S.W. 591, 116 S.W. 591 (1909)