Aggers v. State, 13012.
| Decision Date | 12 February 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 13012.,13012. |
| Citation | 24 S.W.2d 838 |
| Parties | AGGERS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Gray County; W. R. Ewing, Judge.
W. A. Aggers was convicted of theft, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Cook, Smith & Teed, of Pampa, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Offense, felony theft; penalty, three years in the penitentiary.
Appellant was charged with the theft of one 15½-inch Wilson elevator of the value of $100, one 10-inch Wilson elevator of the value of $75, one Pyle National generator of the value of $100, as well as sundry articles of household goods, not necessary to here detail. This property is shown to have been in the custody of J. R. Davis, superintendent of the Arnold Oil & Drilling Company. The articles first above mentioned were found by officers on a lot back of a residence in charge of a Mr. Hendricks, where appellant was shown to be staying. The various articles of household goods were found inside the house, some of them in the room occupied by appellant. The officers operated without a search warrant. Appellant testified for himself that the various articles found by the officers had been theretofore purchased by him, and denied their theft.
By various bills of exception, the admissibility of the testimony of the officers and others touching the result of the search is questioned; it being claimed that the search was illegal and in violation of appellant's constitutional right protecting him against unreasonable searches and seizures. The testimony as to what was found in appellant's room was stricken by the court.
The error, if any, in the admission of the testimony of officers concerning facts ascertained as the result of an illegal search was in this case rendered harmless by the action of appellant, who himself took the witness stand and admitted possession of the articles about which the officers testified. 4 Texas Jurisprudence, par. 414; Shuffield v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 18 S.W.(2d) 640; Herman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 18 S.W.(2d) 170; Poteet v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 17 S.W.(2d) 46; Duncan v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 633, 13 S.W. (2d) 703; Rousey v. State, 110 Tex. Cr. R. 33, 7 S.W.(2d) 557; Broyles v. State, 110 Tex. Cr. R. 77, 7 S.W.(2d) 555; McLaughlin v. State, 109 Tex. Cr. R. 307, 4 S.W.(2d) 54.
Moreover, the right of appellant to complain of an illegal search is a privilege personal to the wronged party and does not embrace cases where, as in the instant one, the premises searched were in the possession and control of another. Cornelius on Search and Seizure, § 12. In this case it appears that, aside from the room of appellant, the searched premises were in the custody and control of a Mr. Hendricks.
A second application for a continuance appears in the record, and the court's action in refusing same is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gardner v. State
-
Winkley v. State, 23678.
...for a want of diligence. 9 Tex.Jur., Continuance, Sec. 98, p. 780; Jones v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 60, 29 S.W. 2d 791; Aggers v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 391, 24 S.W.2d 838. Bills of exception appear complaining of the closing argument of State's counsel as being inflammatory, prejudicial, and no......
-
Williams v. State, 26688
...fact that the witness promised to be in attendance and testify. See Bernal v. State, 103 Tex.Cr.R. 200, 280 S.W. 221, Aggers v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 391, 24 S.W.2d 838. The same rule applies to co-parties as to other witnesses. See 9 Tex.Jur. p. 674, par. Appellants failed to produce any ev......