Baker v. State, 48713
| Decision Date | 10 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 48713,48713 |
| Citation | 511 S.W.2d 272 |
| Parties | Jesse Lee BAKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Hillord H. Hinson, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Marty McVey, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is theft; punishment, enhanced under Article 62, Vernon's Ann.P.C., is ten years.
In the early morning hours of November 6, 1972, appellant and another were seen climbing over a fence into a storage area of Elliott Valve and Repair Company in Houston. When appellant climbed back out he was apprehended, but his companion escaped undetected. Subsequent investigation revealed that a large valve weighing between 150 and 200 pounds had been moved two or three feet from its original position. The jury was charged on the law of principals.
Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to show he had reduced the property to his control and manual possession. In the case of Senter v. State, 411 S.W.2d 742, this Court held that where the evidence shows there was a reduction of the property to the control and manual possession of the defendant, removal of the property from the premises is not necessary for commission of the offense of theft. Removal of the object from its customary location is sufficient to show such reduction to the control or manual possession as is required. See Perry v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 741; Masters v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 437 S.W.2d 868. In Esparza v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 367 S.W.2d 861, the defendant was found to have stolen an automobile, even though the taking was accomplished by pushing the car by hand, and it was moved only a few feet. See also Westerman v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 101, 161 S.W.2d 95, wherein this Court said:
'The fact that something prevented the further use by appellant of the car would not prevent the case being one of theft.'
See also Article 1412, V.A.P.C. which states:
'To constitute 'taking' it is not necessary that the property be removed any distance from the place of taking; it is sufficient that it has been in the possession of the thief, though it may not be moved out of the presence of the person deprived of it; nor is it necessary that any definite length of time shall elapse between the taking and the discovery thereof; if but a moment elapse, the offense is complete.'
The evidence of taking was sufficient.
Appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maxwell v. State
...time the theft of the ring from the residence was complete. See Barnes v. State, 513 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Baker v. State, 511 S.W.2d 272 (Tex.Crim.App.1974). Appellant only helped sell the ring. Because the state introduced the confession in evidence, it was bound by the exculpat......
-
Brown v. State
...appropriation, although it is not necessary for the property to be removed any distance to constitute a taking. See Baker v. State, 511 S.W.2d 272, 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) ("[R]emoval of the property from the premises is not necessary for commission of the offense of theft. Removal of th......
-
Camp v. State
...purposes of theft." Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Steinberg, 316 S.W.3d 752, 756 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied) (citing Baker v. State, 511 S.W.2d 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)); see Miera v. State, 663 S.W.2d 508, 511 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1983, no pet.). Contrary to Camp's argument, "[t]o show th......
-
Rodgers v. State
...the defendant, removal of the property from the premises is not necessary for commission of the offense of theft." Baker v. State , 511 S.W.2d 272, 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) ; see Hill v. State , 633 S.W.2d 520, 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) ("[I]t is not essential that the property be taken ......