He cites Otts v. State, 135 Tex.Crim. 304, 116 S.W.2d 1084 (1938); commendably acknowledges that Simon v. State, 480 S.W.2d 439 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972) is "contra;" and says Grady v. State, 466 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.Cr.App. 1971) is distinguishable. For its part, the State naturally relies on Simon v. State, supra, and Asner v. State, 138 Tex.Crim. 420, 136 S.W.2d 822 (1939), but from Grady v. State, supra, asserts that a statement made as a means of committing or furthering an offense is not exculpatory, and argues that the representation and remark by appellant "is res gestae as part of the criminal act of indecency with a child, Romans v. State, 153 Tex.Crim. R., 220 S.W.2d 891 (Tex.Cr.App. 1949)" which "does not per se negate the culpable intent that appellant touched the child to arouse and gratify his sexual desire.

Such an inference under the "new" code would still require a circumstantial evidence charge, unless the elements of the offense are otherwise established and the circumstances are merely corroborative. Asner v. State, 138 Tex.Crim. R., 136 S.W.2d 822 (1939); Wilson v. State, 115 Tex.Crim. R., 28 S.W.2d 804 (1930). Cooper v. State, 537 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Cr.App. 1976), a case cited by both State and appellant is distinguishable, being a case dealing with V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 31.03(b)(2).

The same statements were offered by the State "as tending to show the account given by appellant was untrue, known to him to be untrue, and therefore incriminating evidence against him, in that they show an effort and scheme to shield himself from the force and effect of his presence at the scene of the homicide and other facts tending to connect him with the murder." See also Asner v. State, 138 Tex.Crim. R., 136 S.W.2d 822, 826; Grady v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 466 S.W.2d 770." (emphasis supplied.)

The statements were offered by the State "as tending to show the account given by appellant was untrue, known by him to be untrue, and therefore incriminating evidence against him, in that they show an effort and scheme to shield himself from the force and effect of his presence at the scene of the homicide and other facts tending to connect him with the murder." See also Asner v. State, 138 Tex.Crim. 420, 136 S.W.2d 822, 826; Grady v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 466 S.W.2d 770. Appellant further claims the court erred in instructing the jury the State was not bound by the date alleged in the indictment.

statements were offered by the State 'as tending to show the account given by appellant was untrue, known by him to be untrue, and therefore incriminating evidence against him, in that they show an effort and scheme to shield himself from the force and effect of his presence at the scene of the homicide and other facts tending to connect him with the murder.' See also Asner v. State, 138 Tex.Crim. R., 136 S.W.2d 822, 826; Grady v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 466 S.W.2d 770.'

The rule that the State is bound to disprove exculpatory statements has been applied in cases where the crime has already been committed and where the State has introduced a statement of the accused containing an admission or confession along with a declaration that would excuse or free him from guilt. See Asner v. State, 138 Tex.Crim. R., 136 S.W.2d 822, 826. The statement to the cashier that she purchased the saw was a means of committing the offense.

DAVIDSON, Judge. It has long been deemed proper, though not always necessary, for a trial court, in his charge to the jury, to explain or to define the elements or ingredients of the offense against the accused, by a reference to the allegations of the indictment and the statute under which the prosecution is conducted. 24 Tex. Jur. 556; Davis v. State, 10 Tex. App. 31[ 10 Tex. Crim. 31]; Simons v. State, 34 S.W. 619; Asner v. State, 136 S.W.2d 822, 138 Tex. Crim. 420. It is incumbent upon trial courts, in felony cases, to make an application of the law to the facts in the charge to the jury. Henry v. State, 149 S.W.2d 115, 141 Tex. Crim. 486; Murphy v. State, 95 S.W.2d 133, 130 Tex.Crim. R.; Lockhart v. State, 63 S.W.2d 299, 124 Tex.Crim. R.. In keeping with this rule, the trial court, in the instant case, instructed the jury that the indictment charged that appellant did wilfully desert, neglect and refuse to provide for the support of his children, and that it constituted a violation of the law for a father to wilfully desert, neglect, or refuse to provide for the support and maintenance of his children under sixteen years of age.

In a prosecution for buying and receiving stolen property, the question of the value of the property is left to the jury. King v. State, 194 Ark. 157, 106 S.W.2d 582; Thompson v. State, 184 Md. 555, 42 A.2d 113; Asner v. State, 138 Tex.Cr. 420, 136 S.W.2d 822; State v. Grijalva, 8 Ariz. App. 205, 445 P.2d 88; Swearington v. State, 251 Ark. 747, 474 S.W.2d 111; Thomas v. State, 2 Md. App. 645, 236 A.2d 747; Heyroth v. State, 275 Wis. 104, 81 N.W.2d 56. CATES, Presiding Judge.