Bowie v. State, 39536
| Decision Date | 27 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 39536,39536 |
| Citation | 401 S.W.2d 829 |
| Parties | James BOWIE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Marks, Time & Aranson by James Keith Marks, E. Brice Cunningham, Levi Curl, Dallas, for appellant.
Hunry Wade, Dist. Atty., James B. Zimmermann and Malcolm Dade, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is burglary; the punishment, enhanced under the provisions of Article 63, Vernon's Ann.P.C., life imprisonment.
The building alleged to have been burgled was leased by Fame Fashions, Inc. for the manufacturing and shipping of dresses. The overhead door at the rear of this building was large enough to accommodate trucks, and opened into a foyer or loading dock about 10 feet deep, at the rear of which was a wall with a sliding door leading to the rest of the building.
There is no dispute that the outside overhead door to the building was open at the time of the alleged offense, and that entrance to the loading dock could be made without any 'breaking.' It is the state's theory that appellant broke into the interior shipping and storage department of the building by pushing open the sliding door leading from the loading dock.
Mr. Robert Newhouse testified that he and two other executives of the corporation were in the building at about 5:20 p.m. when he observed two men inside the shipping and storage area, and that they dropped a box of dresses they were carrying and ran through the sliding door, shutting it behind them. Mr. Newhouse followed and saw two men drive off in an automobile which had been backed up to the open overhead door. He positively identified appellant as one of the two men found inside the building. The automobile used in the 'get-away' was shown to be registered in appellant's name.
Mr. Jules Fine testified that he was an executive of the corporation and that, as such, he had care, custody, and control of the building and the property therein, and that appellant did not have permission to be in the building or to take the box of dresses.
Other testimony showed that the corporation's employees quit work at 4:00 p.m. that day; that only the three executives memtioned above were in the building after 5:00 p.m.; that they were in offices at the front of the building; that the sliding door into the shipping and storage department was closed at about 5:00 p.m. when the manager of that department left work; and that this door would automatically return to a closed position after being opened.
The evidence that the front of the building was occupied by the three officers of the corporation; that appellant's automobile was backed up to the back door of the building; and that the intruders immediately ran out the sliding door, closing it behind them, when they were discovered, is sufficient to support a conclusion that they gained entrance to the shipping and storage area through the sliding door, which was shown to be closed only minutes before the incident occurred. Such an entry is an entry by force and constitutes 'breaking' as defined by Article 1394, Vernon's Ann.P.C.; Warden v. State, Tex.Crim.App. 366 S.W.2d 786; Sparks v. State, 34 Tex.Cr.R. 86, 29 S.W. 264.
Appellant contends that the evidence shows that the building was enter through the open back door, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neumuller v. State
...The trial court, pursuant to TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 28.10, allowed the State to amend. Appellant relies on Bowie v. State, 401 S.W.2d 829, 831 (Tex.Crim.App.1966) interpreting former Article 28.10 as limiting amendment to "matters of form." The statute was amended in 1985 to read "a m......
-
Brasfield v. State
...570, 82 S.W.2d 962 (county of grand jury). The constitutional principle at issue has also been restated in recent years. In Bowie v. State, 401 S.W.2d 829, the Court approvingly quoted from Erisman's Manual of Reversible "Since the indictment is the result of grand jury action, the allegati......
-
Boulware v. State
...failure to object properly at trial, including an illegal arrest, Bardwell v. State, 489 S.W.2d 627 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Bowie v. State, 401 S.W.2d 829 (Tex.Cr.App.1966), the admission of the fruits of an illegal search, Ashford v. State, 502 S.W.2d 27 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Mortier v. State, 498......
-
Gibson v. State
...failure to object properly at trial, including an illegal arrest, Bardwell v. State, 489 S.W.2d 627 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Bowie v. State, 401 S.W.2d 829 (Tex.Cr.App.1966), the admission of the fruits of an illegal search, Ashford v. State, 502 S.W.2d 27 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Mortier v. State, 498......