Bowman v. State

• Citation: 155 S.W. 939
• Parties: BOWMAN v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 02 April 1913
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

155 S.W. 939

BOWMAN v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 2, 1913.

Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; W. S. Anderson, Judge.

Ed. Bowman was convicted of burglary, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Dwyer & Chambers, of San Antonio, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of burglary, and his punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.

There are many questions raised in the motion for a new trial, but we do not deem it necessary to discuss each of them. The evidence shows that the store of W. A. Cardwell was burglarized on the 28th day of April, 1912; that the door had been prized open with a tool that left an imprint on the wood—there being three impressions—there being a gap in the instrument that made the impression. The safe in this store was blown open with dynamite, and the money contained therein taken therefrom. The evidence against appellant was wholly circumstantial; but it may be said that it was sufficient to sustain the verdict, if there was no prejudicial error committed in the trial of the case.

As the evidence clearly shows there was no question of intent in the case, the person who entered the store did so with the intent to commit and did commit theft is proven beyond question, and appellant raises no question that if he was the person who entered the store he did so with any innocent intent. In Branch's work on Criminal Law (section 338) the rule is correctly stated as follows: "Defendant should be tried on the merits of each case, and proof of extraneous crimes which does not go to show intent, identity, or system, or which is not part of the res gestæ, is not admissible, if it could only show that defendant was a criminal generally. Gilbraith v. State, 41 Tex. 567; Buck v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 319, 83 S. W. 390; Lee v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 51, 73 S. W. 407; McIver v. State, 60 S. W. 51; Buck v. State, 38 S. W. 772; Kelley v. State, 18 Tex. App. 262; Bryan v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 200, 91 S. W. 581; Nixon v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 209, 20 S. W. 364; Williams v. State, 24 Tex. App. 412, 6 S. W. 318; Ivey v. State, 43 Tex. 425; Grant v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 274, 58 S. W. 1026; Wilson v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 118, 51 S. W. 916; Williamson v. State, 13 Tex. App. 518; Conley v. State, 21 Tex. App. 495, 1 S. W. 454; James v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 194, 49 S. W. 401; Unsell v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 330, 45 S. W. 1022; Owens v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 391, 46 S. W. 240; Welhousen v. State, 30 Tex. App. 626, 18 S. W. 300; Owen v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 261, 125 S. W. 405; Johnson v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 440, 60 S. W. 667; Jordan v. State, 96 S. W. 35; Lightfoot v. State, 106 S. W. 345; Hill v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 603, 73 S. W. 9; Marshall v. State, 22 S. W. 878; Schwen v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 370, 35 S. W. 172; Neumann v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 248, 125 S. W. 28; Holland v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 29, 115 S. W. 48; Pace v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 90, 124 S. W. 951; Chumley v. State, 20 Tex. App. 556; Woodard v. State, 51 S. W. 1122; Brown v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 129, 112 S. W. 80; Latham v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 472, 473, 46 S. W. 638; Riggins v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 475, 60 S. W. 877; Dimry v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 273, 53 S. W. 853; Haney v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 158, 122 S. W. 34; Pridemore v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 563, 129 S. W. 1113, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 858; Crass v. State, 30 Tex. App. 480, 17 S. W. 1096; Cesure v. State, 1 Tex. App. 22. Proof of other offenses is not admissible to show system, intent, or identity, unless some of these matters are in issue. Denton v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 429, 60 S. W. 670; Parker v. State, 75 S. W. 30; Glenn v. State, 76 S. W. 759; Bink v. State , 89 S. W. 1076; Davenport v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 11, 89 S. W. 1077; Barnett v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 538, 99 S. W. 556; Herndon v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 555, 99 S. W. 558; White v. State, 11 Tex. App. 479."

In this case it is shown that the court admitted evidence that the store of H. Yaechel was burglarized on the 7th day of January (three months prior to the burglary in this case), that the store of L. T. Mumme was burglarized on March 23d, that the store of J. F. Homen was burglarized on April 25th, and evidence was introduced tending to show that appellant was guilty of these four separate and distinct offenses. It is evident, from the date of each of these offenses, that one...