Burns v. State, 41442
| Citation | 432 S.W.2d 93 |
| Decision Date | 24 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 41442,41442 |
| Parties | Charles Wilson BURNS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Walter B. Conway, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Phyllis Bell and Ruben W. Hope, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Texas and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is felony theft with a prior conviction for an offense of the same nature alleged for enhancement; the punishment, 10 years.
Appellant's first contention is that the court erred in failing to grant an instructed verdict of not guilty on the grounds that no connection had been shown between one Portfeld, who initiated the confidence scheme, and appellant, who concluded the same. This is what occurred. Portfeld appeared at the house of Labate, an elderly retired seaman, and represented himself as the agent of a bonding company which was obligated to pay the debts of the bankrupt Heights Termite Company. He told Labate that an audit of the Termite Company's books revealed that they owed him (Labate) the sum of Two Thousand Dollars and offered to pay this sum with a check in the sum of $4,100.00 at the same time asking Labate to give him his personal check in the amount of $2,100.00, payable to one Charles William Burns, who, according to Portfeld, his company also owed said sum. Since there is a little larceny in the hearts of all women and most men, Labate after first refusing the refund agreed that perhaps the Heights Termite Company did owe him something after all and agreed to the transaction. After Portfeld had left appellant appeared at Labate's home armed with the $2,100.00 check, represented himself to be Charles William Burns, the person to whom the Heights Termite Company owed the $2,100.00 and asked Labate to call his bank and verify the validity of the check. The check was cashed and a cashier's check issued to appellant for the same sum.
As might have been expected, the $4,100 check was valueless and appellant was finally apprehended and identified.
This simple statement of this new angle is ample to show that appellant and Portfeld were working in unison, and appellant's first ground of error is overruled.
Appellant's final contention is that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence samples of his handwriting which were taken from appellant by a Deputy Sheriff during a recess in the trial. Massiah v. United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olson v. State
...sample. The same question based on substantially the same objection was presented to this Court in the recent case of Burns v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 93, and was answered adversely to appellant. Handwriting samples were taken from Burns by a deputy sheriff during a recess at his tri......
-
Smith v. State, 41697
...727, V.A.C.C.P., in effect at the time of appellant's arrest, did not apply to the taking of a blood test. Only recently in Burns v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 93, this Court had occasion to pass upon the question of the admissibility of 'exemplars' of handwriting specimens. We affirmed......