Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 07 January 1893 |
| Parties | BROWN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, El Paso county; T. A. FALVEY, Judge.
Prosecution of Samuel Brown for horse theft. Defendant was convicted, and appeals. Reversed.
R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of horse theft, and his punishment assessed at a term of seven years in the penitentiary, and therefrom he prosecutes this appeal. At the time the horse described in the indictment was stolen, a large number of horses were stolen, all of which were driven into Lincoln county, in the territory of New Mexico, where one Anderson, signing the name of Richard White thereto, executed to defendant a bill of sale to said horses. They were driven thence to Terra Blanco, at which point about 30 head of the horses were traded for land, and 40 head driven to Armarillo, in Potter county, Tex. From the place of theft to the latter point is a distance of about 560 miles. Some of the horses were taken in Mexico, and conveyed into this state. Pursuit was made by federal officers, and at Armarillo defendant was arrested, in possession of the 40 head of horses. During this pursuit these officers arrested Anderson, returning, and about eight miles distant, from Armarillo. While under arrest, and in reply to their inquiry, Anderson stated that "Brown had part of the horses at Armarillo, and some of them were left at Terra Blanco, about thirty miles this side of there, and he said something about trading some of the horses for land at Terra Blanco." This testimony was objected to, for several reasons. While this testimony was inadmissible as against defendant, yet the error is harmless, when viewed in the light of the evidence, because the defendant was arrested while in possession of the horses found at Armarillo, and because it was proved abundantly by the other and independent evidence that he drove the horses from New Mexico to Terra Blanco, and there traded for the land. Under this state of case, we do not think the admission of Anderson's statement to the officers constitutes reversible error.
2. By Anderson the state offered to prove that the bill of sale to the horses, purporting to be signed by Richard White, was in fact executed by the witness and not by said White. To this end the district attorney was permitted to elicit from this witness that he, when testifying before the grand jury, had made certain statements in relation to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pierce v. State
...any supposed error in the admission of the latter would be rendered harmless. Fulcher v. State, 28 Tex. App. 470, 13 S. W. 750; Brown v. State, 20 S. W. 924; Laurence v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 601, 21 S. W. 766; Am. Digest (Century Edition) vol. 15, p. Especially is this true in the instant ......
-
State v. Mungeon
... ... Lothrop v. Roberts, 16 Colo. 250, 27 Pac. 698; Commonwealth v. Gould, 158 Mass. 499, 33 N.E. 656; State v. Morgan, 133 NC 743, 45 S.E. 1033; Brown v. State, 20 S.W. 924; Ward v. People, 6 Hill 144; State v. Van Winkle, 80 Iowa 15, 45 N.W. 388; Morgan v. Halberstadt, 60 Fed. 592, 9 CCA 147; State v. Wentworth, 20 Am. Rep. 688; State v. Foster, 55 AmDec 191; White v. State, 52 Miss. 216; Ingalls v. State, 48 Wis. 647, 4 N.W. 785; San Antonio ... ...
-
State v. Mungeon
... ... objection of the witness, to inform the latter of the rule of ... law that he is not bound to criminate himself. Lothrop v ... Roberts, 16 Colo. 250, 27 P. 698; Commonwealth v ... Gould, 158 Mass. 499, 33 N.E. 656; State v ... Morgan, 133 N.C. 743, 45 S.E. 1033; Brown v. State ... (Tex. Cr. App.) 20 S.W. 924; Ward v. People, 6 Hill ... (N. Y.) 144; State v. Van Winkle, 80 Iowa, 15, ... 45 N.W. 388; Morgan v. Halberstadt, 60 F. 592, 9 C ... C. A. 147; State v. Wentworth, 20 Am. Rep. 688; ... State v. Foster, 55 Am. Dec. 191; White v ... State, 52 Miss ... ...
-
State v. Haynes
... ... 13; 10 Crim ... L. Mag. 172; Peo. v. Ames, 39 Cal. 403; Peo. v ... Thompson, 50 Cal. 480, Abb. Tr. Cl. Bf. 452. When the ... testimony against the defendant is that of an accomplice, ... failure of the court to instruct the jury on the law upon ... that phase of the case is error. Brown v. State, 20 ... S.W. 924; State v. Coudotte, 7 N.D. 109, 72 N.W ... 913; 2 Thompson on Trials, § 2427; Peo. v ... Elliot, 106 N.Y. 292. If the jury had been instructed ... upon the point in question, they might have found that the ... evidence was insufficient to corroborate Reams. Peo. v ... ...