Campbell v. State

Decision Date08 March 1911
Citation135 S.W. 548
PartiesCAMPBELL v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Robt. B. Seay, Judge.

Ed Campbell was convicted of theft from the person, and appeals. Affirmed.

C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

This conviction was for theft from the person. Appellant made a motion to quash the indictment, because the description of the alleged stolen property is insufficient to put the defendant on notice of what he is charged with taking; that it does not describe the character of money, or that it passed current as money, and gives no further description, and it fails to charge what character or kind of knives were taken, and it gives no description or value of the ring. The indictment, in so far as the motion to quash attacks it, is in the following language: "Corporeal personal property then and there belonging to the said Tom Harrison, to wit: Four dollars in money, two knives, and one ring."

It is not necessary, in charging theft from the person, to allege the value. Theft from the person is different from the ordinary theft in this respect: Any theft from the person is a felony, by the terms of the statute, as is theft of a horse, cow, or hog; the value not being a necessary element. It differs from the general statute of theft in this respect: Under the general statute the value is made the basis or criterion of punishment. Where it is under $50 it is a misdemeanor. Where it is over that amount, it is a felony. Any theft from the person is a felony. Shaw v. State, 23 Tex. App. 493, 5 S. W. 317; Bennett v. State, 16 Tex. App. 236; Harris v. State, 17 Tex. App. 132; Green v. State, 28 Tex. App. 493, 13 S. W. 784.

Under these authorities, the second question may be as well answered, that the description is sufficient. Four dollars in money, two knives, and one ring constitute property. Certainly, $4 in money would necessarily have a value, whether it be money issued under the authority of the United States, or any other government. While coin or money of foreign governments would not be money in the United States, unless provided so by acts of Congress, yet such money would have a value. It was held in Shaw v. State, supra, that the allegation of theft from the person of one certain gold finger ring was sufficient description. The motion to quash is not well taken.

The record is before us without a bill of exception or statement of facts. As presented, we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Wood v. State, 67486
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 3, 1982
    ...two oil cups, (etc.)," Schenk v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 564, 174 S.W. 357 (1915); "$4 in money, 2 knives, & one ring," Campbell v. State, 61 Tex.Cr.R. 504, 135 S.W. 548 (1911); "one watch & one pocket knife," Grissom v. State, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 146, 49 S.W. 93 (1899); "on (sic) horse," Barner v. St......
  • Sims v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 3, 1912
    ...every species of personal property capable of being taken." This court, through Presiding Judge Davidson, in the case of Campbell v. State, 135 S. W. 548, in discussing the sufficiency of the allegations, which we think is also applicable to the proof necessary to sustain them, has so well ......
  • Mays v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 29, 1968
    ... ... 21.09, supra, this court has upheld as sufficient the following: "One watch and one pocketknife * * *": Grissom v. State, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 146, 49 S.W. 93; "* * * Four dollars in money, two knives, and one ring": Campbell v. State, 61 Tex.Cr.R. 504, 135 S.W. 548; "* * * one suit of clothes, of the value of $10": Baldwin v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 499, 175 S.W. 701; "* * * one bale of seed cotton, of the value of $100": Tolbert v. State, 84 Tex.Cr.R. 159, 205 S.W. 987; '* * * one automobile tire of the value of.$3,50 * * ... ...
  • Edwards v. State, 27836
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 30, 1955
    ...was described in the indictment as 'money of the value of $580.00.' This was a sufficient description of the money. See Campbell v. State, 61 Tex.Cr.R. 504, 135 S.W. 548, and Guyon v. State, 89 Tex.Cr.R. 287, 230 S.W. We remain convinced that there was not a fatal variance between the alleg......
  • 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