Bowen v. State, 43255
| Decision Date | 09 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 43255,43255 |
| Citation | 460 S.W.2d 421 |
| Parties | Oscar Franklin BOWEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Louis G. Mehr, Houston (on appeal), for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Phyllis Bell and Ted Hirtz, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is burglary; the punishment, five (5) years.
The sufficiency of the evidence is challenged.
At 5:00 a.m., the burglar alarm at Corrigan's Jewelry Store alerted the police. When they entered with the assistance of the manager, they discovered a hole in the ceiling which had been freshly made. This was over and near the top of the vault. When they ascended to the roof, they found a hole in the roof large enough to admit a man. In the attic they discovered what was to the burglary detail officers the most unusual set of burglary tools they had ever viewed. Included among these tools were a jack hammer, a compressor and a drill press. The total weight of the tools was in excess of 150 pounds. Over the hole in the ceiling, there was a flashlight so suspended that its beam was directed toward the concrete roof of the vault. Each of the many items found was dusted without success for fingerprints. Only cloth smudges appeared. Finally on the inside of the flashlight, the batteries themselves were dusted and a definite print was found. There was no showing as to how long the prints had been on the battery. It was compared with the prints of known local burglars with negative results. Then it was compared with some twenty furnished by the Oklahoma City Police and a positive identification was made; it was shown to match appellant's fingerprint.
It was further shown by a witness from Salt Lake City that the drill press found in the attic had been manufactured by Ace Company and sent to Oklahoma City, where it had mysteriously disappeared. On the day of the burglary, it was the only drill press of its kind that was not accounted for.
The burglary tools were photographed for dissemination to other police organizations throughout the country so that they might be prepared for a burglar with the same modus operandi. Both the photographs and the tools were admitted into evidence at the trial. Each bore only a tag which was removed prior to its introduction, which was proper. Appellant's counsel skillfully cross-examined each officer and they honestly told him that without the tag th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Albrecht v. State
...the Port City Bank of Houston and appellant's fingerprints appeared thereon. Appellant relies on the holdings of this court in Bowen v. State, 460 S.W.2d 421, Dues v. State, 456 S.W.2d 116, and McGarry v. State, 82 Tex.Cr.R. 597, 200 S.W. 527, for the proposition that the presence of appell......
-
Hernandez v. State, No. 13-03-663-CR (TX 7/7/2005)
...of the burglary. See Villarreal v. State, 79 S.W.3d 806, 811 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2002, pet. ref'd.) (citing Bowen v. State, 460 S.W.2d 421, 423 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970)). One important factor in determining the sufficiency of fingerprint evidence is the extent to which the fingerprinted......
-
Young v. State
...that the latent fingerprint identifying the appellant could have been left there by appellant on another occasion. See Bowen v. State, 460 S.W.2d 421 (Tex.Crim.App.1970); Dues v. State, 456 S.W.2d 116 (Tex.Crim.App.1970); Caudillo v. State, 318 S.W.2d 891 (Tex.Crim.App.1958); Weir v. State,......
-
Villarreal v. State, 13-01-00100-CR.
...to sustain a conviction if the evidence shows that the prints were necessarily made at the time of the burglary. Bowen v. State, 460 S.W.2d 421, 423 (Tex.Crim.App.1970); Nieto v. State, 767 S.W.2d 905, 908 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.). One important factor in determining the suff......