Arrington v. State
| Decision Date | 17 May 1911 |
| Citation | 137 S.W. 669 |
| Parties | ARRINGTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, De Witt County; John M. Green, Judge.
Willis Arrington was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
J. P. Parris, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment in this case contains two counts—one charging appellant with theft of a horse, and the other charging him with receiving the horse, knowing it was stolen, and concealing it, in De Witt county, Tex.
The term of court at which appellant was tried adjourned February 3, 1911. The bills of exception and statement of facts were not filed until March 11, 1911, more than 30 days after the adjournment of court. There is in the record an order extending the time for filing the statement of facts, but none in regard to the bills of exception. Therefore that part of the motion filed by the Assistant Attorney General is sustained, and the bills of exception are stricken from the record.
The charge of the court submitted to the jury both counts in the indictment, and the jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty under the second count, in which he was charged with receiving and concealing stolen property in De Witt county.
The evidence shows defendant was in possession of the stolen horse, and sold it to J. W. Moore in Fayette county, Tex., and the circumstances would be sufficient to sustain the finding that he knew it was stolen; but the record fails to disclose where he obtained possession of the horse, except in so far as his testimony relates to the matter. He testifies that he got the horse from Jones & Rogers at Flatonia, Tex. Flatonia is in Fayette county, also. The jury, under the circumstances in this case, could have found the defendant guilty of theft of the horse under the first count in the indictment; and, had they done so, the evidence would have sustained it. But they did not do so. In fact, by their verdict they find he did not steal the horse; and, if he did not, there is no evidence in the record which would show the horse ever to have been in possession of defendant in De Witt county, Tex. We have searched the record carefully, for, if there was any evidence in the record that he had received and concealed the horse in De Witt county, Tex., this judgment should be affirmed; for it is shown that defendant was in possession of three horses at West Point, all of which were stolen, and afterwards recovered by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pye v. State
...v. State, 25 Tex. App. 512, 8 S. W. 661, and cases cited in these opinions. We are cited by appellant to the cases of Arrington v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 357, 137 S. W. 669; Smith v. State, 25 Tex. App. 454, 8 S. W. 645, and other cases. By reference to the Smith Case, it will be seen there ......
-
Fallon v. State
...us to conclude that the trial court was not justified in submitting to the jury the second count in the indictment. The Arrington Case, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 357, 137 S. W. 669, cited by appellant, was decided upon the sole question of the absence of proof of venue. A witness who testified in the ......