Davis v. State, 16160.
| Decision Date | 13 December 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 16160.,16160. |
| Citation | 66 S.W.2d 343 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Motley County; Kenneth Bain, Judge.
Claud Davis was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
L. G. Mathews, of Floydada, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is burglary; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
The store of A. J. Hudson was burglarized on the night of August 13, 1932, and a quantity of merchandise was stolen therefrom. The witness Martin testified that about twenty days later, he observed three parties, one of whom was the appellant, at or near a spring in Floyd county, Tex., where two automobiles were parked. According to the witness, the situation of the cars and the parties indicated that they were endeavoring to screen themselves from the view of the public. Later, the sheriff of Briscoe county came upon the cars mentioned, whereupon the persons present fled. One of them named Stinson was captured, but the other two escaped. The sheriff was unable to identify the appellant as one of the parties who had escaped. In the automobile which was abandoned a part of the stolen property mentioned was found. In October following the discovery made on September 2d, the witness Martin and the sheriff went to Mineola, Ark., and there Martin identified the appellant as one of the persons whom he had seen at the automobile in September. There was evidence that finger prints had been taken in the store from which the property was taken. One finger print was in a drawer containing some dry goods, another was on a bottle, and another was on a shoe box. The finger print of the appellant was subsequently taken, and according to an expert witness on the subject of finger prints, the print upon the drawer mentioned was identified as corresponding with that of the appellant. The other two finger prints which were found in the building were not identified. The appellant had lived in the vicinity but had moved, and at the time of the burglary was a resident of the state of Arkansas. Appellant introduced testimony sufficient, if believed, to establish an alibi.
The views of this court and others, expressed in the cases of Graves v. State, 119 Tex. Cr. R. 68, 43 S.W.(2d) 953; McGarry v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 597, 200 S. W. 527; Weathered v. State, 119 Tex. Cr. R. 90, 46 S.W.(2d) 701, are to the effect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clewis v. State
...Powell v. State, 116 Tex.Crim. 34, 28 S.W.2d 142 (1930); Stevens v. State, 121 Tex.Crim. 511, 50 S.W.2d 284 (1931); Davis v. State, 125 Tex.Crim. 6, 66 S.W.2d 343 (1933); Armistead v. State, 130 Tex.Crim. 501, 94 S.W.2d 1161 (1936); Ralston v. State, 133 Tex.Crim. 100, 109 S.W.2d 185 (1937)......
-
Bigby v. State
...Powell v. State, 116 Tex.Crim. 34, 28 S.W.2d 142 (1930); Stevens v. State, 121 Tex.Crim. 511, 50 S.W.2d 284 (1931); Davis v. State, 125 Tex.Crim. 6, 66 S.W.2d 343 (1933); Armistead v. State, 130 Tex.Crim. 501, 94 S.W.2d 1161 (1936); Ralston v. State, 133 Tex.Crim. 100, 109 S.W.2d 185 (1937)......
-
Lawless v. State
...was shown that the pane was in a place accessible to the general public and the pane contained other prints. See also Davis v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 6, 66 S.W.2d 343 (1933). In Anthony v. State, 85 Ga.App. 119, 68 S.E.2d 150 (1951) the prints were found on the money boxes of a pinball machin......
-
Grice v. State, 21458.
...was reversed. Apparently no great weight was given to the identification of accused by reason of the finger prints. In Davis v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 6, 66 S.W.2d 343, written in 1933, the opinion was expressed that in Graves v. State, supra, McGarry v. State, supra, and Weathered v. State, ......