Clark v. State
| Decision Date | 24 June 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 17985.,17985. |
| Citation | 95 S.W.2d 1309 |
| Parties | CLARK v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Fisher County; W. R. Chapman, Judge.
G. C. Clark was convicted for receiving and concealing stolen property, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Stinson, Hair, Brooks & Duke, of Abilene, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Conviction for receiving and concealing stolen property; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.
Three accomplices swore in substance that they lived at Hamlin, Tex., and upon advice of appellant, working for him and using his truck in the nighttime, they stole cotton seed from Wall, who lived in an adjoining county. They claimed to have taken the cotton seed back to Hamlin after stealing same; that they reported to appellant, who asked one of them, a boy named Earnest, to take the seed out to his house and keep them a while, which Earnest did. The theft being discovered, the seed was located, and the sheriff got the seed and delivered them to the owner.
We think the description of the property as 60 bushels of cotton seed of the value of $90, of certain ownership, is sufficient. Grissom v. State, 40 Tex.Cr. R. 146, 49 S.W. 93; Walton v. State, 41 Tex.Cr.R. 454, 457, 55 S.W. 566; Baldwin v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 499, 175 S.W. 701; Bell v. State, 84 Tex.Cr.R. 160, 205 S.W. 986; Houston v. State, 98 Tex.Cr.R. 280, 265 S.W. 585.
We think there is nothing in the proposition that if the proof showed appellant to be an accomplice to the theft, he could not be convicted as a receiver of the alleged stolen property. The point is discussed at length in Gammel v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 328, 62 S.W.(2d) 139. See, also, Petty v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 82 S.W. (2d) 965.
The case must be reversed for lack of corroboration of the accomplices. They could not corroborate themselves. No one save these three witnesses connects appellant with the taking of the property, nor in any adequate degree with the property after it was stolen. It is the rule in this state that the accomplice must be corroborated both as to the theft and as to the receiving and concealing. Hanks v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 405, 117 S.W. 149; Wilson v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 308, 28 S.W.(2d) 804; Bloch v. State, 81 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 193 S.W. 303; Poon v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 522, 525, 48 S.W.(2d) 307. The only witness for the state whose testimony even smacks of corroboration is Mrs. Earnest, mother of the boy who claimed to have taken the stolen cotton seed to his home after same were stolen. She testified that after her son, W. D., brought the seed to her home, appellant and one Jerry Boiles came out there. We quote from her testimony at this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stanley v. State
...Miss. 739, 57 So.2d 574; People v. Daghita, 301 N.Y. 223, 93 N.E.2d 649; Evans v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 211 S.W.2d 207; Clark v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 95 S.W.2d 1309; Hochman v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 23, 170 S.W.2d 756. See many other cases to same effect cited in 136 A.L.R. at page 1088. Th......
-
Sanders v. State, 22183.
...We cite only Colley v. State, 140 Tex. Cr.R. 34, 143 S.W.2d 597; Wright v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 255, 139 S.W.2d 825; Clark v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 95 S.W.2d 1309; Kosel v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 257, 144 S.W. 2d 543. Many other cases will be found cited in those The judgment is reversed an......
-
Evans v. State, 23994.
...to the theft. Gammel v. State, 124 Tex.Cr. 328, 62 S.W.2d 139; Petty v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 562, 82 S.W.2d 965; Clark v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 95 S.W. 2d 1309. The distinguishing feature in determining when one is a principal to the crime of theft rather than of receiving and concealing ......
-
Wright v. State
...as to the theft and as to the receiving of the stolen property." See Johnson v. State, 42 Tex.Cr.R. 440, 60 S.W. 667; Clark v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 95 S.W.2d 1309. This being a well-recognized rule in this state, it was necessary for the State, in the instant case, not only to corroborat......