Alexander v. State
Decision Date | 14 December 1892 |
Citation | 20 S.W. 756 |
Parties | ALEXANDER v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, San Jacinto county; L. B. HIGHTOWER, Judge.
Jeffry Alexander, having been convicted of burglary, appeals. Affirmed.
R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of burglary under an indictment charging the entry by different counts to have been made with intent to commit theft and rape. The testimony discloses that defendant, at a late hour of the night, subsequent to the retirement of the family, entered the house by climbing in through an open window, elevated five feet or more from the ground, into the room where a young lady and younger sisters were sleeping. Ignorant of his presence in the room, the young lady arose, and lighted a lamp, heard a noise as if some one had fallen on the floor, looked, and discovered the defendant secreted between her bed and the wall. He did not touch her, but, on being discovered, fled from the house, escaping from the same window through which the entry had been accomplished. There was a bureau, wardrobe, washstand, and some jewelry and clothing in the room. Nothing was taken from the room. The court submitted the case upon the different counts, and the jury returned a general verdict, finding defendant guilty. Among other things, the court charged the jury, with reference to the question of force: This portion of the charge was excepted to, and a counter charge requested, which was refused. In this there was no error. The doors to the room, which are the usual places of entry to said room, were closed on the night of the burglary. The window through which the entry was made, though open, was an unusual place of entrance. Pen. Code, art. 708; Painter v. State, 26 Tex. App. 454, 9 S. W. Rep. 774. A window may or not be a usual place of entering a house, but this is a question of fact to be solved by the testimony adduced on the trial. A window, elevated five feet or more above the ground, as in this case, would be an unusual place of entry, especially when it is shown that the party who entered through it did so by climbing, in order to accomplish the entry....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Woodruff
...C. 10, 293 F. 829;Smith v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 427, 102 S. W. 406;Mullens v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 149, 32 S. W. 691;Alexander v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 359, 20 S. W. 756; 4 R. C. L. 441. Many other authorities upon this proposition could be cited. In State v. Worthen, supra, the defendant......
-
Dimery v. State
...the verdict will not be set aside on the ground that it is not supported by the facts. Branch's P.C., Sec. 2344; Alexander v. State, 31 Tex.Cr.R. 359, 20 S.W. 756; Mullins v. State, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 149, 32 S.W. 691; Smith v. State, 51 Tex.Cr.R. 427, 102 S.W. 406; Black v. State, 73 Tex.Cr.R. 4......
-
Mixon v. State, 35106
...218, 80 S.W.2d 967; Holland v. State, 47 Tex.Cr.R. 623, 85 S.W. 798; Knotts v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 32 S.W. 532; Alexander v. State, 31 Tex.Cr.R. 359, 20 S.W. 756. An examination of Warden v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 366 S.W.2d 786; Benton v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 618, 302 S.W.2d 138; Hall v. Stat......
-
O'Neal v. State
...is nothing in the testimony to indicate that such entry was made with any other intent. Franco v. State, 42 Tex. 276; Alexander v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 359, 20 S. W. 756; Mullens v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 149; 32 S. W. 691; Matthews v. State [Tex. Cr. App.] 38 S. W. 172; Smith v. State, 51 ......