Bussell v. State
| Decision Date | 08 October 1924 |
| Docket Number | (No. 8184.) |
| Citation | 265 S.W. 164 |
| Parties | BUSSELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Parmer County; Reese Tatum, Judge.
Bill Bussell was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
A. B. Crane, of Farrell, and Williams & Martin, of Plainview, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
The offense is receiving stolen property; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.
It is charged that the appellant received 12 spools of barbed wire of the aggregate value of $60, being the property of Elbert Overton and having been previously stolen from him by some unknown person.
Overton, the owner of 27 spools of barbed wire, of the average value of $5 per spool, had distributed them upon a tract of land with the intention of constructing a fence. They remained exposed to the weather for many months, and about a year after they were distributed, Overton missed all of the spools of wire except 3. Twelve of them were found in the possession of the witness Phillips. The 12 spools of wire which Phillips had purchased from the appellant were identified by Overton as part of the property mentioned. Appellant testified and admitted that he had delivered the 12 spools of wire to Phillips, but denied that he had taken any part in the theft of them from Overton. He claimed that he had purchased them from one Jones who had them in his possession. At the time of their purchase, appellant had no knowledge that they had been stolen.
The indictment contained two counts: One charging the appellant with the theft of property; the other, with its fraudulent receipt. He was acquitted of theft, but was found guilty of receiving the property knowing it to have been stolen from some person unknown to the grand jurors.
The evidence of the theft was circumstantial, as was also the identity of the thief.
Appellant advanced the proposition that if the thief originally stole the property in separate parcels, each of which was of a value less than $50, the grade of the appellant's offense would not be a felony but a misdemeanor. We are not able to concur in this position. If the appellant in a single transaction received 12 spools of wire of the aggregate value of $60 knowing them to have been stolen, he was guilty of a felony. The evidence develops a conflict touching the value of the wire which the appellant received. From the evidence the jury would have been authorized to find that the aggregate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pickett v. State
...allowed to account for absence of material witnesses it should have had present to escape adverse inference," citing Bussell v. State, 98 Tex.Cr.R. 170, 265 S.W. 164. In that case the accused claimed to have purchased certain stolen wire from one Jones, who claimed to have owned the wire. T......
-
Castillo v. State
...283 S.W.3d 348, 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (citing Sparks v. State, 300 S.W. 938, 939 (Tex. Crim. App. 1927), Bussell v. State, 265 S.W. 164, 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 1924), Richardson v. State, 91 S.W. 218, 222-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1922) (op. on reh'g), and McCall v. State, 14 Tex. Ct. App. 353......
-
Kihega v. State
...instruction. McCall, 14 Tex.Ct.App. at 363;see also Sparks v. State, 108 Tex.Crim. 367, 300 S.W. 938, 939 (1927); Bussell v. State, 98 Tex.Crim. 170, 265 S.W. 164, 165 (1924). Because Kihega properly objected to the charge as given, we must reverse the trial court's judgment if it can be sh......
-
Barrios v. State
...requested." Id. at 363. Accord, Sparks v. State, 108 Tex.Crim. 367, 300 S.W. 938, 939 (Tex.Crim.App. 1927); Bussell v. State, 98 Tex.Crim. 170, 265 S.W. 164, 172 (Tex.Crim.App.1924); Richardson v. State, 91 Tex.Crim. 318, 239 S.W. 218, 326-27 (Tex.Crim.App.1922). Appellant contends that it ......