Bonners v. State
| Decision Date | 13 May 1896 |
| Citation | 35 S.W. 650 |
| Parties | BONNERS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Dallas county; Charles F. Clint, Judge.
Judge Bonners was convicted of the theft of a horse and two mules, and appeals. Affirmed.
Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the theft of a horse and two mules, and given seven years in the penitentiary, and prosecutes this appeal.
1. There was no error in overruling the motion for a continuance, nor in overruling the motion for a new trial, predicated upon the same ground. This was a second application for continuance, and the evidence was clearly cumulative. Besides, the fact that appellant may have been at Scurry, in Kaufman county, on Wednesday night, does not show that he was not in Dallas county on Tuesday night, at the place where the horse and mules were stolen. The distance between Scurry and the place of the alleged theft is not stated.
2. There was no error in admitting the testimony of the Tuckers as to the sale of the "smut-colored horse" to one of them, although the indictment was not for the theft of this horse. He was stolen by the defendant on the same night, and said evidence was a part of the res gestæ of the offense charged against the defendant, and was legitimate testimony to identify the transaction, and to show the intent of the defendant. The court, in its charge, limited the purpose of this testimony. The limitation was not exactly proper, but it was more liberal in favor of the defendant than the law authorizes, and he cannot complain.
3. As the court gave a full charge on circumstantial evidence, there was no occasion to give the special charge asked by the appellant on the possession of property recently stolen. The charge on accomplice's testimony was correct, and the testimony, aside from the accomplice's testimony, tended strongly to connect the defendant with the offense charged. The charge of the court on venue was sufficient, and it was not necessary to give that asked by appellant. The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State
...62 S. W. 917; Glover v. State, 76 S. W. 465; Lynne v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 377, 111 S. W. 729; Penrice v. State, 105 S. W. 797; Bonners v. State, 35 S. W. 650; House v. State, 16 Tex. App. One who reads the record in this case learns that appellant and deceased came in the saloon together ......
-
McNeely v. State
...on circumstantial evidence is given it is not necessary to give a charge specially on the question of recent possession. Bonners v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 35 S. W. 650. Appellant again insists upon the lack of testimony. We recapitulate. Mr. Parker moved with his family to Lubbock county in ......
-
Compton v. State, 23066.
...v. State, 6 Tex.App. 609; Thompson v. State, 42 Tex.Cr.R. 140, 57 S.W. 805; Watters v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 94 S.W. 1038; Bonners v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 35 S.W. 650; Jones v. State, 14 Tex. App. 85; Mueller v. State, 85 Tex.Cr.R. 346, 215 S.W. Appellant contends, however, that the cases of......
-
State v. Harras
...they were to look upon and consider this character of evidence, is all that the law requires. 12 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 1013; Bonners v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 35 S.W. 650. next error complained of is in the giving of the following instruction (No. 8): 'The state is not required, however, to prove......