Beland v. State
| Decision Date | 06 October 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 27052,27052 |
| Citation | 271 S.W.2d 430,160 Tex.Crim. 351 |
| Parties | Annice BELAND, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Truman Power, Jack Love, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Howard M. Fender, Crim. Dist. Atty., Randell C. Riley, Conrad Florence, Asst. Crim. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Wesley Dice, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
Appellant was convicted for the offense of felony theft, and her punishment was asessed at two years in the penitentiary.
Reginald C. Phillips, an employee of the Wood Photo Company, testified that he saw appellant pick up a camera, place it under her skirt and leave the building occupied by said Photo Company. He identified appellant at the trial as being the person who took the camera.
Will S. Wood, Jr., testified that after Phillips notified him of the loss of the camera and pointed out appellant as she left the building as the person who took it, he pursued appellant until she boarded a bus. He identified appellant at the trial as the person he saw leaving his place of business after the loss of the camera.
Appellant did not testify and offered no evidence in her behalf.
The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Appellant contends that the indictment charging her with taking 'one camera' does not describe with sufficient certainty the type or kind of property alleged to have been taken, therefore it does not apprise her of the nature of the accusation against her.
We are of the opinion that the allegation as to the description of the property designated an object which is commonly known by that name and was sufficiently definite to apprise appellant of the nature of the charge against her. Art. 403, C.C.P.; Smith v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 322, 98 S.W.2d 806; Young v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 509, 141 S.W.2d 315.
By Informal Bill of Exception No. 1, appellant complains of the state asking its witness Montgomery 'Are you acquainted with the general reputation of this defendant in the community in which she resides for being a law abiding, peaceable person,' which question was not answered. The court sustained appellant's objection thereto and instructed the jury not to consider it for any purpose. Upon objection to the asking of the question, the court sustained same and again instructed the jury not to consider any reference to the question for any purpose.
Appellant did not testify and offered no evidence in her behalf. No issue being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. State, 67486
..."one hundred twenty-five pounds of grain," Guidry v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 516, 360 S.W.2d 152 (1962); "one camera," Beland v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 351, 271 S.W.2d 430 (1954); "an automobile," Hicks v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 595, 83 S.W.2d 349 (1935); "one four-wheel trailer and about 1300 pou......
-
Bruner v. State, 48527
...('one (1) television set'); Wilson v. State, 398 S.W.2d 291 (Tex.Cr.App.1965) ('ten (10) drill bits'); Beland v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 351, 271 S.W.2d 430 (Tex.Cr.App.1954) ('one (1) The authorities relied on by appellant are not controlling, because in each of those cases, the Quantity of t......
-
Mays v. State
...automobile tire of the value of.$3,50 * * *': Young v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 509, 141 S.W.2d 315; "one camera * * *": Beland v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 351, 271 S.W.2d 430. We hold the allegation, 'one (1) television set,' in the instant indictment a sufficient description of the property. Appe......
-
Wilson v. State
...drill bits' is an inadequate description of the property alleged to have been stolen. (Art. 403, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.) Beland v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 351, 271 S.W.2d 430, Guidry v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 516, 360 S.W.2d 152. See also Hendley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 313 S.W.2d 296; Johnson v. St......