## Facts

- John Allen was the deputy sheriff and jailer of Hunt County, Texas, and had custody of John Williams, who was jailed on a murder charge.
- O’Brien knew Williams was in jail and had visited him.
- According to the State’s proof, Allen told O’Brien that Allen would accept money in exchange for allowing or arranging Williams’s escape.
- After Allen’s statement, O’Brien offered the requested payment to Allen for the purpose of inducing Allen to permit Williams to escape.
- Texas charged O’Brien with bribery based on an offer to a law-enforcement officer connected to the officer’s official duties.
- At trial, the court instructed the jury that if O’Brien offered the bribe, he must be found guilty even if the officer had solicited the bribe.
- The jury convicted O’Brien, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant may be convicted of bribery based on an offer to a law-enforcement officer when the officer first solicited the payment.
2. Whether a jury instruction telling jurors to convict “even if” the officer solicited the bribe improperly removes from the jury the question whether the defendant’s offer was corrupt and voluntary.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the challenged instruction was erroneous because it treated the officer’s solicitation as legally immaterial and could keep the jury from considering facts bearing on whether the offer was made corruptly.

## Legal Principles

- Bribery may be established by a corrupt offer of a benefit to influence a public officer in the discharge of official duty; acceptance is not required.
- The State must still prove the offer was made corruptly, meaning with the criminal intent required by the statute.
- An officer’s solicitation of a bribe does not automatically bar prosecution, but it is a circumstance the jury may consider when deciding whether the defendant acted with a corrupt purpose and made a voluntary, blameworthy offer.
- A jury charge that directs a finding of guilt while declaring solicitation irrelevant is improper if it withdraws intent-related circumstances from the jury’s evaluation.

## Conclusion

O’Brien’s conviction was reversed because the trial court instructed the jury to find him guilty of bribery upon proof of an offer even if the jailer initiated the transaction by soliciting payment, a circumstance the jury was entitled to consider in deciding whether O’Brien’s offer was corrupt as required for bribery.


O'Brien v. State, 6 Tex. App. 665 (1879)