Bruner v. State, 48527

Decision Date22 May 1974
Docket NumberNo. 48527,48527
Citation509 S.W.2d 620
PartiesErma Lee BRUNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Malcolm Dade and John E. Rapier, Court Appointed On Appeal, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty. and Maridell Templeton, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DALLY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for felony theft; the punishment, ten years imprisonment.

Appellant contends that the indictment is fatally defective in that it insufficiently describes the property taken as 'two suits and being of the total value of over $50.00,' and that the Court erred in overruling her motion to quash the indictment. Article 21.09, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., reads in part as follows:

'When it becomes necessary to describe property of any kind in an indictment, a general description of the same by name, kind, quality, number and ownership, if known, shall be sufficient . . .'

Appellant says the description in the instant indictment does not describe the Kind of property taken, i.e., 'whether the suits are women's suits, childrens' suits, men's suits, suit's (sic) of cards, costumes, or merely suits of clothing.'

We do not think the description 'two suits' is so vague as to be insufficient under Article 21.09, supra. 1 This Court has held similar descriptions of property to be sufficient. See White v. State, 505 S.W.2d 258 (Tex.Cr.App.1974) ('one (1) pick-up truck'); Kirkland v. State, 489 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) ('one (1) oxygen container'); Ward v. State,446 S.W.2d 304 (Tex.Cr.App.1969) ('one (1) automobile'); Mays v. State,428 S.W.2d 325 (Tex.Cr.App.1968) ('one (1) television set'); Wilson v. State, 398 S.W.2d 291 (Tex.Cr.App.1965) ('ten (10) drill bits'); Beland v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 351, 271 S.W.2d 430 (Tex.Cr.App.1954) ('one (1) camera').

The authorities relied on by appellant are not controlling, because in each of those cases, the Quantity of the property taken was not alleged. See Moore v. State, 473 S.W.2d 523 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) ('tires'); Oakley v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 630, 323 S.W.2d 43 (Tex.Cr.App.1959) ('seed'); Scott v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 396, 67 S.W.2d 1040 (Tex.Cr.App.1934) ('certain lubricating oil'); cf. Young v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 509, 141 S.W.2d 315 (Tex.Cr.App.1940). We overrule this ground of error.

Appellant further asserts that the prosecutor improperly cross-examined her concerning the details of her prior convictions. The questions complained of were as follows:

'(PROSECUTOR): Let me just ask you, Ma'am, if you are one and the same Irma Lee Bruner who in 1967 was convicted of the offense of theft over for the unlawful felony theft over of two suits of men's clothing, value of fifty-nine ninety-nine each of the total value of over $50.00?

'(PROSECUTOR): And one and the same Irma Cox Bruner, alias Irma Lee Bruner who was duly and finally convicted of the felony offense of theft over, one radio tape player, seven boxes of cards, all of the total value of over $50.00 and received a five year sentence in the Texas Department of Corrections, September, 1968?

'(PROSECUTOR): Well, I will just ask you to read the Indictment where it indicates two suits of men's clothing the value of--'

Appellant's objection to the first question was a general objection to 'going into that matter at this phase of the trial.' She made no objection to the second question and she obtained no adverse ruling from the Court on her objection to the third question.

Moreover, all of the information conveyed by these three questions is contained in the records of the appellant's prior convictions, and these records were all properly admitted into evidence without objection. They consisted of authenticated copies...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Wood v. State, 67486
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 3, 1982
    ...State, 608 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); "seven rifles," Welch v. State, 543 S.W.2d 378 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); "two suits," Bruner v. State, 509 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); "One oxygen container and the contents thereof, to wit: oxygen," Kirkland v. State, 489 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); "o......
  • Davis v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 29, 1992
    ...informed the jury of the historical facts of the offense alleged in the charging instrument. The State relies on Bruner v. State, 509 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.Crim.App.1974). The State argues that in any event the instruction to the jury to disregard the officer's answer cured any error. 3. Applicat......
  • State v. Czaplinski
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 4, 1997
    ...directly on point held that an alleged theft of "two suits" satisfied the notice requirement of article 21.09. See Bruner v. State, 509 S.W.2d 620, 621 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); see also Baldwin v. State, 76 Tex.Crim. 499, 175 S.W. 701 (1915) ("one suit of clothes" sufficiently descriptive). The......
  • Brackley-Gross v. State, 07-14-00269-CR
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 16, 2016
    ...at 737 (finding "one truck trailer" and "one automobile" to be a sufficient description of property stolen); Bruner v. State, 509 S.W.2d 620, 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (finding "two suits" to be a sufficient description); Gaines v. State, 501 S.W.2d 315, 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (finding......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT