Deem v. State, 30087
| Decision Date | 12 November 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 30087,30087 |
| Parties | Phillip M. DEEM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
[167 TEXCRIM 110] Martin & Shown, Houston, for appellant.
Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White and Charles C. Castles, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is felony theft; the punishment three years.
The indictment alleged the theft of six suits of clothes of the value of $160 each from Ray R. Elliott who, the evidence shows, was general manager of Sakowitz Brothers and as such had the [167 TEXCRIM 111] care, control, custody and management of all of the merchandise they had for sale.
Appellant was a salesman employed by Sakowitz Brothers.
The State elected to prosecute for the theft of one suit which was that introduced in evidence as State's Exhibit 1.
This suit was recovered by City Detective C. L. Franklin, of the Houston Police Deprtment, from one Wilford Macey upon information he received from appellant, who told him that he had taken it from Sakowitz Brothers and sold it to Macey. Macey testified that he purchased the suit from appellant for $35 or $40 at his (Macey's) bar.
Manager Elliott testified that the suit was one of some 54 missing, his identification being based upon the stock control records of the company and the labels in the suit, which he said established that it was a suit which Sakowitz Brothers had ordered and received but which they had not sold.
The value of the suit and of the coat alone was shown to be more than $50.
In addition to his oral confession, appellant made two written confessions, one of which included theft of suits from Byrds, a former employer.
A portion of this confession was not offered by the State but by appellant.
In confessing the theft of suits from Byrds, appellant said that he first took the pants and the next day the coat to a locker in the bus station from where he delivered it in pursuance of an agreement with the purchaser made before the taking of the pants.
In the same confession he said that he took suits from Sakowitz Brothers 'the same way I got the suits from Byrds.'
Upon these portions of the confession omitted by the State and offered by appellant, it is contended that the court should have submitted an issue or instructed an acquittal on the ground of variance. We do not agree.
[167 TEXCRIM 112] There was but one design,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v. State
...The theft of the automobile fairly can be said to have begun when the appellant took the keys to the automobile. Cf. Deem v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 110, 318 S.W.2d 649 (1958) (only one design, impulse, and purpose in taking suit, notwithstanding fact that pants and coat were taken on separate......
-
Pena v. State
...the indictment were taken either on or about the same time or on separate occasions with one design, impulse or purpose, Deem v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 110, 318 S.W.2d 649; Flynn v. State, 47 Tex.Cr.R. 26, 83 S.W. 206, for an absence of such proof, there would be but several misdemeanor offen......
-
Cordell v. State
...as embodied in Count Two of the indictment are sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction under the authority of Deem v. State, 318 S.W.2d 649 (Tex.Cr.App.1958), which is cited in the recent case of Watson v. State, 605 S.W.2d 877 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). In Deem, the prosecution was for th......