Barber v. State
| Decision Date | 21 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 6-82-080-CR,6-82-080-CR |
| Citation | 668 S.W.2d 424 |
| Parties | W.S. BARBER, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Rex Houston, Wellborn, Houston, Perry & Adkison, Henderson, L.G. Hawkins, Sapulpa, Okl., for appellants.
R. Clement Dunn, John W. Tunnell, Asst. Dist. Attys., Longview, for appellee.
W.S. Barber, B.S. Barber, and Jean Brown appeal their convictions of engaging in organized criminal activity. We find the evidence insufficient to support the convictions and reverse.
Engaging in organized criminal activity is prohibited by Section 71.02, Tex. Penal Code Ann. (Vernon Supp. 1982-1983). 1 It makes participation in combination with others, in a conspiracy to commit or in the commission of certain offenses, criminal conduct. Combination means five or more persons who collaborate in carrying on the criminal activity. Section 71.01(a), Tex. Penal Code Ann. (Vernon Supp. 1982-1983). Jean C. Brown, W.S. "Bull" Barber, B.S. "Buddy" Barber, Tommy Bolin, Garvin Richardson, John Wilcox, Bob Cunningham, Jack Clothier, Wade Navarre, and James Breaux were indicted for conspiring and agreeing with each other to commit the offense of theft of crude oil.
Before reading the indictment to the jury, the trial court deleted the names of Tommy Bolin, Garvin Richardson, and Jack Clothier. At the conclusion of the State's case the court granted an instructed verdict regarding John Wilcox and James Breaux. When the jury was instructed concerning the law of the case, only Jean C. Brown, W.S. "Bull" Barber, B.S. "Buddy" Barber, Bob Cunningham, and Wade Navarre were named as having conspired and agreed to commit the offense of theft of crude oil. 2
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Carlsen v. State, 654 S.W.2d 444 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Acevedo v. State, 633 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). When we apply this standard to a circumstantial evidence case, we determine whether the evidence excludes all outstanding reasonable hypotheses other than the accused's guilt. Carlsen v. State, supra. Because appellants were charged with engaging in organized criminal activity, the evidence must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that appellants collaborated in combination with each other, Bob Cunningham, and Wade Navarre to commit theft of crude oil.
The evidence concerning the Barbers shows that: B.S. Barber asked Clint Garner, a Railroad Commission inspector, about a good time to move the oil; the Barbers and Garner had a conversation in which the Barbers expressed a desire to move some "hot" oil in the East Texas field; B.S. Barber accompanied the truck driver on several of his trips to pick up oil; B.S. Barber did not help load the oil, but waited with other men at the road; B.S. Barber appeared at Buddy Davis' house and asked whether he was late; B.S. Barber is the payee on a check; W.S. Barber ordered telephone service for Creek Terminal Company and requested the billing go to Jean Brown; and various phone calls were made to or from a number registered in the Barbers' names.
The evidence relating to Jean Brown shows that: Jean Brown hired Timothy Jones to drive a truck; she contacted Jones about getting some oil in East Texas; checks were made payable to or signed by Brown; "run tickets" had Brown's name on them; Brown registered at the Community Inn in Kilgore; a woman called the telephone company requesting service for Creek Terminal; Jean Brown ordered the service disconnected; and telephone calls were made to or from a number registered in Brown's name.
The evidence concerning Bob Cunningham shows that he worked for Jean Brown and helped Timothy Jones, a truck driver for Brown, set up some oil tanks. Jones saw Cunningham at a cafe in the presence of the Barbers and Tommy Boland. Also Cunningham was authorized to sign checks for Creek Terminal Company and signed certain "run tickets" on Jean Brown's account.
Regarding Wade Navarre, he was shown to have been introduced to W.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barber v. State, 6-82-080-CR
...in the light most favorable to the verdict, we found that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. Barber v. State, 668 S.W.2d 424 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1984), vacated, 764 S.W.2d 232 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). The highest court in this state disagreed with our determination that the......
-
Fee v. State
...insufficient evidence to establish that the three participated in a combination with two other named defendants. Barber v. State, 668 S.W.2d 424 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1984). On review, this Court "In other words, the Court of Appeals found the evidence insufficient to establish the existence......
-
Barber v. State
...71.02. The Texarkana Court of Appeals found the evidence insufficient to support the conviction and reversed. Barber v. State, 668 S.W.2d 424 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1984). We The statute provides: "A person commits an offense if, with the intent to establish, maintain or participate in a comb......
-
State v. Barber
...punishment at five years confinement. The Court of Appeals reversed appellants' convictions on sufficiency grounds. Barber v. State, 668 S.W.2d 424 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1984). We reversed that ruling and remanded the cause for consideration of appellants' remaining points of error. The Cour......