Cast v. State, 28603

Decision Date05 December 1956
Docket NumberNo. 28603,28603
Citation164 Tex.Crim. 3,296 S.W.2d 269
PartiesA. B. CAST, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Arthur C. Riddle, Luling, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for perjury; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

The perjury charged against the appellant is assigned upon his testimony before the grand jury wherein he testified that he saw James Martin at the Crown Jewelers in Sinton, San Patricio County, Texas, sometime prior to May 4, 1955, return two diamond rings to Fred White. The indictment further alleged that such testimony was deliberately given and known by appellant to be false.

The grand jury, at the time of the statement assigned as perjury, was investigating the disappearance of two diamond rings from Crown Jewelers, a business owned by the appellant, which rings had been delivered to the appellant by Fred White, the owner, for safe-keeping.

Fred White testified that in either February or March, 1955, he took two diamond rings to the Crown Jewelers for appraisal; that appellant, the owner of Crown Jewelers, appraised them to be of the value of $2,000; that he asked appellant about keeping the rings for him, which he agreed to do and put them in a box and placed them in his safe. He further testified that he returned to Crown Jewelers about three months later but before May 4, 1955, and asked for the rings; that appellant was not present but James Martin, an employee, was there and he opened the safe but was unable to locate the rings; that the rings have never been returned to him, and that he never authorized the appellant to deliver them to anyone.

James Martin testified that while he was employed by appellant Fred White came to Crown Jewelers in February or March, 1955, and left two diamond rings with the appellant for safe-keeping. Later, he testified, Fred White returned, asked for the rings, and that he searched the safe as well as the place of business but was unable to locate the rings and did not know what became of them. He further testified that Fred White filed a complaint against appellant and his wife charging them with theft of the rings and that soon thereafter appellant filed a complaint against him charging the embezzlement of funds and they were placed in jail. He also stated that Mrs. Cast told him while they were in jail that if he would testify that he returned the rings to Fred White they would dismiss the embezzlement charge; that thereafter he testified at the examining trial that he returned the rings to Fred White and later appeared before the grand jury and gave the same testimony. Then he testified that he voluntarily re-appeared before the grand jury, retracted his former testimony about the rings, and testified that he knew nothing of the disposition of the rings or their whereabouts.

Sheriff Hunt and Deputy Sheriff Whitehead each testified that appellant and his wife, in the presence of each other when arrested and informed of the nature of the charge named in the warrant of arrest, insisted that the rings were then in the safe at Crown Jewelers, that they then went to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Paulus v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 28 October 1981
    ...language of the statute has remained the same. An accomplice witness11 has been described as a discredited witness. Cast v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 3, 296 S.W.2d 269 (1956); Odom v. State, 438 S.W.2d 912 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); 23 C.J.S., Crim.Law, § 808, p. 72. It has been frequently said that the......
  • Mitchell v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 27 April 1983
    ...Roderiquez v. State, 32 Tex.Cr.R. 259, 22 S.W. 978 (1893); Bullock v. State 165 S.W. 196 (Tex.Cr.App.1914).1 Cast v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 3, 296 S.W.2d 269, 271 (Tex.Cr.App.1956).2 See cases annotated under Article 38.14, n. ...
  • Hernandez v. State, 04-81-00053-CR
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 28 July 1982
    ...He is also a discredited witness, because his testimony alone cannot furnish the basis for a conviction. Cast v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 3, 296 S.W.2d 269 (1956). If the witness has been indicted for the offense on trial or implicates himself or herself while testifying, the witness is an acco......
  • Walker v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 13 May 1981
    ...remained the same since the first Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. An accomplice witness is a discredited witness (Cast v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 3, 296 S.W.2d 269 (1956)) because her or his testimony alone cannot furnish the basis for the conviction. O'Neal v. State, 421 S.W.2d 391 (Tex.Cr.......
  • 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