Mackenna v. State
| Decision Date | 03 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 28942,28942 |
| Parties | Edward Morgan MacKENNA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
[164 TEXCRIM 624] Appellant represented himself.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., H. Lem Brotherton, Homer Montgomery and George P. Blackburn, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for felony theft; the punishment, eight years confinement in the penitentiary.
The State's testimony shows that the injured party, Squire Haskins, was a commercial photographer in the city of Dallas. On the afternoon of October 18, 1955 between the hours of 2:00 and 5:00 o'clock Haskins parked his automobile near his office at Fair Park. At such time he left in the automobile one of his cameras and a leather case which had an aggregate value of approximately $250. Later around 10:00 o'clock Haskins drove away in the automobile and on the following morning discovered that the camera and case were missing. He immediately notified the police and about two weeks later identified and recovered the camera and case from the property room of the Dallas Police Department.
The State's testimony further shows that on November 3rd the appellant was discovered in possession of the missing camera and case by Officer Pope of the Dallas Police Department who recovered the same after observing the appellant place the articles in a locker at the Union Bus Station.
As a witness in his own behalf appellant admitted his possession of the camera and case but denied that he had stolen them. In explaining his possession he testified that he came into possession of the camera and case on October 13th on an occasion when he had gone to the State Fair. He testified that he met a man whom he knew, carrying the case; that they sat at one of the stands on the midway; the man got up and excused himself and left the leather case containing the camera on [164 TEXCRIM 625] a stool and that appellant picked the case up with the purpose of getting it back to the owner.
Appellant insists that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.
With such contention we do not agree.
The evidence is undisputed that the camera and case were stolen from the injured party on or about the date alleged. Appellant was found in possession of the recently stolen property and his possession unexplained.
Such evidence, under the rule of unexplained possession of recently stolen property is sufficient to sustain the conviction. 41-A Tex.Jur. 227, Sec. 233.
In his brief appellant contends that he was deprived of the right to secure witnesses to appear in his defense.
The record does not sustain the contention.
While Bill of Exception No. II certifies that on the day the case proceeded to trial a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MacKenna v. Ellis
...to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. That court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, April 3, 1957. MacKenna v. State, 1957, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 623, 301 S.W.2d 657. The opinion of the court did not deal with Exception I. The court held, as to Exception II: "While Bill of Exception No.......
-
MacKenna v. Ellis, 17213.
...of conviction. On April 3, 1957, the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas in an opinion reported in MacKenna v. State, 301 S.W.2d 657. On October 14, 1957, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the defendant's petition for certiorari, 355 U.S. 851, 78 S.Ct......
-
Hardesty v. State, 65718
...recent and unexplained possession of stolen property was sufficient in itself to sustain a conviction. MacKenna v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 623, 301 S.W.2d 657 (Tex.Cr.App.1957); Wall, supra; Foster v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 61, 338 S.W.2d 458 (Tex.Cr.App.1960); Stubblefield v. State, 372 S.W.2d ......
-
Smith v. State, 49607
...theft of that property. See, e.g., Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973); MacKenna v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 623, 301 S.W.2d 657 (1957); Bowers v. State, 414 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); English v. State, 441 S.W.2d 195 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Sirabella v. St......