Brown v. State, 30386
Citation | 167 Tex.Crim. 352,320 S.W.2d 845 |
Decision Date | 11 February 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 30386,30386 |
Parties | M. G. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Levie Old, Mark Callaway, Brownwood, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is felony theft; the punishment, two years.
The indictment alleged the theft of bed sheets of the value of over $50 from C. H. Hester, in Randall County, Texas.
Hester was the freight agent for the Santa Fe Railway at Brownwood. He testified that he was in charge of any freight that was in the depot or coming through it.
A shipment of sheets arrived in Brownwood in two Santa Fe trucks. They were shipped from Post, Texas and consigned some to Stephenville and some to Arlington and Grand Prairie--via Brownwood.
Appellant was an employee of the Santa Fe at Brownwood, acting as clerk and dispatcher. He was one of a number of employees, including all truck drivers, who had a key that would unlock any of their trucks and the warehouse.
There was testimony to the effect that on the day the shipment of sheets was in Brownwood appellant asked a fellow employee to permit him to drive his Buick to Amarillo, but his request was not granted.
Without setting out the evidence in that regard, it is sufficient to say that the jury was warranted in believing that the bed sheets were taken by someone while the shipment was moving through the Brownwood terminal.
Prosecution was in Randall County, the State relying upon Art. 197, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. which reads: 'Where property is stolen in one county and carried off by the offender to another, he may be prosecuted either in the county where he took the property or in any other county through or into which he may have carried it.'
It was incumbent upon the State to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty of the theft of the bed sheets, and also that he carried them into Randall County after they were stolen.
Three hundred and eighty-three bed sheets answering the description of those missing were found in a dry goods store in Hereford, Deaf Smith County. They were being sold at such low prices as to create suspicion.
Amador Munoz, the owner of the store, told the officers who investigated that he purchased the sheets from John W. Daniels, who delivered them to his store. Munoz so testified at the trial.
John W. Daniels testified that he purchased the bed sheets he sold to Munoz from appellant at a liquor store in Amarillo, and that they were unloaded from appellant's automobile into his truck on the roadside at a point shown to be in Randall County.
Wilma Mae Daniels, wife of John W. Daniels, gave similar testimony.
The court recognized Daniels and his wife as being accomplice witnesses, and so instructed the jury.
The question is whether or not there is evidence sufficient to corroborate the accomplice testimony, as required by law and by the court's charge.
As we understand the record, the state relies upon the evidence mentioned and one other circumstance as furnishing the required corroboration.
The accomplice witness Daniels was arrested after Munoz named him as the person from whom he purchased the sheets. Several days later he told the officers that he wrote the number of the automobile from which...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McDuff v. State
...himself by his own statements made to third persons. Reynolds v. State, 489 S.W.2d 866, 872 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Brown v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. 352, 320 S.W.2d 845 (1959); and see also Beathard v. State, 767 S.W.2d 423, 429 As noted above, there was trial testimony from a nonaccomplice witness......
-
Hernandez v. State, 04-81-00053-CR
...the victim's testimony cannot be corroborated with her own statement, written or oral, made to a third person, see Brown v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 352, 320 S.W.2d 845 (1959); Pipkin v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 640, 230 S.W.2d 221 (1950), the testimony of the missing aunt was critical to the State......
-
Davis v. Davis
... ... by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2). However, Davis ... does state more specific subsidiary objections that will be ... addressed below. Because the first three ... kind); Dewees v. State , 47 S.W.2d 277, 278 (1932) ... (same); Brown v. State , 320 S.W.2d 845, 847 (1959) ... (“An accomplice cannot corroborate himself by his ... ...
-
Johnson v. State
...However, the images reveal the perpetrator's face and hairline, as well as his body type and size. 3. See Brown v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. 352, 320 S.W.2d 845, 847 (1959) (holding that an accomplice's prior writing of the defendant's license plate could not corroborate the accomplice's testimo......