Cohron v. State, 39003
| Decision Date | 26 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 39003,39003 |
| Citation | 400 S.W.2d 338 |
| Parties | Lee Roy COHRON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jones, Fillmore, Robinson & Lambert, by Glynn Purtle, Wichita Falls, for appellant.
Stanley Kirk, Dist. Atty., Jim Phagan and Thomas F. Keever, Asst. Dist. Attys., Wichita Falls, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is burglary of a private residence at night with intent to commit theft; the punishment, 5 years.
The evidence shows that Mrs. Joe Levell was absent from her home between 8 P.M. and midnight; that when she left the doors were all locked, and when she returned a latch was broken, mud had been tracked in her kitchen and other parts of the house and some of her property, including groceries, canned goods and her chest of silverware, were missing.
Mrs. Levell reported the burglary of her home to the Sheriff's office and Deputy Sheriff Aubrey Bohannon came early in the morning to investigate. He found tracks leading toward a trailer house and called the Sheriff's office for assistance.
Deputy Sheriff Bill Tigert responded to this call and the two officers went to the trailer house where they found appellant, whose automobile was parked nearby. In the back seat of the car, under some bedding, they found personal property such as Mrs. Levell had reported was missing.
Deputy Bohannon testified that he asked appellant why he did it and he said that he had been drinking.
The testimony as to appellant's statement in the nature of a confession to Deputy Bohannon was admitted by the court as res gestae.
The court's ruling in this regard is supported by the opinion of this court in Sewell v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 550, 342 S.W.2d 579. See also Johnson v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 233, 254 S.W.2d 131;
Dempsey v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 387 S.W.2d 891; Windham v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 448, 335 S.W.2d 221; United States v. Mitchell, 322 U.S. 65, 64 S.Ct. 896, 88 L.Ed. 1140
Appellant was then left in custody of Deputy Tigert while Deputy Bohannon went to get Mrs. Levell. She was brought to the car where she saw and identified the property found in appellant's car as property that was missing from her home.
Over proper objection, Mrs. Levell was permitted to testify that she asked appellant 'why he did it and he said he was drunk and he didn't know what he was doing and he said he begged my pardon.' Over like objection, Deputy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sample v. State
...Flores, 86 Cal.App. 235, 260 P. 822 (1927); Commonwealth v. Schultz, 168 Pa.Super. 435, 79 A.2d 109, 111-112 (1951); Cohron v. State, 400 S.W.2d 338, 339 (Tex.Cr.App. 1966). Consequently, the value of the goods actually taken is not determinative of intent in the ordinary case where the bre......
-
Baldree v. State, s. 69741
...instance, the statements of Young and Barnett are clearly admissible under this rule of law. Appellant's reliance on Cohron v. State, 400 S.W.2d 338 (Tex.Cr.App.1966), is clearly misplaced because the opinion makes it clear that when the defendant made his oral statement in the nature of a ......