Crumrine v. State

• Decision Date: 09 November 1949
• Docket Number: No. 24477.,24477.
• Citation: 224 S.W.2d 243
• Parties: CRUMRINE v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

224 S.W.2d 243

CRUMRINE v. STATE.

No. 24477.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 9, 1949.

Commissioners' Decision.

None on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is robbery. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of five years.

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction.

The state's evidence, briefly stated, shows that S. F. Irwin and P. A. Bolton, who lived at Jacksonville, attended an American Legion Convention at Fort Worth, Texas. Late in the afternoon of July 31st, they left Fort Worth and went to Dallas with the purpose of taking a train there for Jacksonville. Upon their arrival at Dallas, they learned that the train which they intended to ride to Jacksonville had already departed. They hired a cab to take them to Elm, but they failed to catch the train there. They then decided to hitch-hike it. They caught a ride from Elm to Riley at which place they sought to catch a ride to their home town. They saw some young men in a pickup truck who apparently were going on a fishing trip. These men agreed to take them to Seagoville, however, they took them only a short distance below Seagoville and by the use of guns and putting the said Irwin and Bolton in fear of their lives and bodily injury, robbed each of a watch, knife and what money they had and told them to get going. Irwin and Bolton went back to Seagoville, reported the matter to the night watchman who summoned the sheriff and some of his deputies, who immediately responded to the call and within a short time arrested appellant and his companions. At the time of their arrest they had all of the illgotten property in their possession except Mr. Irwin's watch, which they had thrown in the grass near the road. They told the officers where they had thrown it and accompanied the officers to the designated place where it was found.

Appellant took the witness stand and testified in his own behalf. He claimed that he did not have a thing to do with the robbery; that he was present and tried to persuade his companions not to rob the old men. This raised an issue of fact which the jury found adversely to him. We think the evidence is ample to support the jury's conclusion of his guilt.

By Bill of Exception No. 1, he complains of the court's action in declining to peremptorily instruct the jury to acquit him. What we have said relative to the sufficiency of...