Cano v. State

• Decision Date: 08 December 1920
• Docket Number: (No. 6010.)
• Parties: CANO v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 1097

225 S.W. 1097

88 Tex. Cr. R. 271

CANO v. STATE.

(No. 6010.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

December 8, 1920.

Appeal from District Court, Webb County; J. F. Mullally, Judge.

Agustin Cano was convicted of robbery, and he appeals. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

W. W. Winslow, of Laredo, for appellant.

Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of robbery, his punishment being assessed at 15 years in the penitentiary.

The indictment charged the robbery of Maria Aristi. The state proved by the injured party and other testimony a case of robbery. There was no question of identity or intent from the state's evidence.

Over objection of appellant the state was permitted to introduce evidence of other criminal acts and the obtaining of money by false pretenses and fraudulent devices occurring subsequent to the alleged robbery of Maria Aristi. The obtaining of the money occurred in this way: That appellant at night crossed over the Rio Grande in a skiff or canoe with a number of people in violation of the law, for which he charged $3.50 for each person. Other cases of criminal acts shown by the state also occurred subsequent to this case. The state insists these bills cannot be considered because filed too late. The record contains an allowance of time after the adjournment of court, but the bills were not filed within the time allowed. However, when the court's charge was submitted to counsel they objected to that portion of it which limited the effect of such testimony. The court thus instructed the jury:

"If you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did commit such alleged robberies, other than the alleged robbery of said Maria Aristi for which he is now being prosecuted, and did commit such alleged thefts by fraud, then you are charged that if you consider said testimony of other offenses at all you can only do so for the purpose for which it was admitted, namely, to show the system and methods, if any, of the defendant; and it can only be used by you, if it does, to pass upon the issue as to whether or not he committed the alleged offense of robbery of Maria Aristi, for which he is on trial," etc.

Objection was promptly urged to this charge and this requested instruction was refused, and defendant excepted:

"In this case you are specially instructed not to consider any testimony adduced upon the trial to this case which connects, or pretends to connect, the defendant with any other offense, and you are only to consider the testimony of Maria Aristi and her two companions in arriving at the guilt or innocence of this defendant."

Whether we consider the bills...