Coffelt v. State

• Decision Date: 15 May 1889
• Parties: COFFELT <I>v.</I> STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

11 S.W. 639

COFFELT

v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Texas.

May 15, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Brown county; J. W. TIMMINS, Judge.

Tom Coffelt appeals from a conviction for robbery. Pen. Code Tex. art. 722, provides that if any person, by assault or by violence and putting in fear of life or bodily injury, shall fraudulently take from the person or possession of another any property, etc., he shall be punished by confinement for not less than two nor more than five years. Article 723 prescribes from two to five years' imprisonment as punishment for taking "by threatening to do some illegal act injurious to the character, person, or property of another."

Scott & Jenkins, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.

HURT, J.

This is a conviction for robbery. The indictment charges that appellant "did then and there, in and upon the body of W. H. Flippin, make an assault, and did then and there, by said assault, and by force and violence, to the said W. H. Flippin, in fear of life and bodily injury, fraudulently, and without the consent of the said W. H. Flippin, take from the person and possession of the said W. H. Flippin, who was then and there the owner thereof, five certain twenty-dollar gold pieces, of the value of twenty dollars each, good and lawful gold coins of the United States of America; also one certain five-dollar gold coin, good and lawful money of the United States of America, of the value of five dollars; also two ten-dollar bills of the denomination of ten dollars each, good and lawful money of the United States of America, of the value of ten dollars each; also one five-dollar bill of the denomination of five dollars, good and lawful money of the United States of America; also five silver dollars, good and lawful money of the United States of America, of the value of one dollar each."

Counsel for appellant assigns for error the overruling of the motion for new trial, based upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, "because there was no evidence showing the kind or value of any of the money, as alleged in the indictment." All the money is alleged to be the lawful money of the United States of America. Undoubtedly this is the description of the coins and bills alleged to have been taken from Flippin, and hence a description of the particular offense charged against appellant. This being the case, while an unnecessary description, still it must be proved. Cameron v. State, 9 Tex. App. 336; Gray v. State, 11 Tex. App. 411; Childers v. State, 16 Tex. App. 524; Withers v. State, 21 Tex. App. 212. The indictment alleges that the robbery was effected by an...