Eaton v. State
Decision Date | 18 February 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 51027,51027 |
Citation | 533 S.W.2d 33 |
Parties | Wiley F. EATON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
James H. Kreimeyer, Belton, for appellant.
Joe Carroll, Jr., Dist. Atty., Al W. Schorre, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Belton, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for arson. Punishment was assessed at sixteen years.
In his sole ground of error, appellant contends 'That there is a fatal variance between the allegation as to the ownership of the building in the indictment and the proof offered at trial.'
Appellant was the manager of a service station. The true owner of the property was a petroleum corporation. The indictment alleged ownership in Charles Minyard, a regional supervisor for the corporation.
Reading the ground of error in conjunction with the argument in support thereof, we construe his complaint as two-fold:
(1) An indictment for arson charging ownership in the supervisor of the property will not support a conviction if the evidence shows a corporation to be the true owner of the property.
(2) The evidence at trial was insufficient to show the supervisor was an owner of the property within the meaning of V.T.C.A. Penal Code Secs. 28.02 and 1.07(a)(24).
We will discuss each contention separately. Regarding the variance complaint, Art. 21.08, V.A.C.C.P., provides in part:
We have frequently said that this statute is applicable to property owned by a corporation. Roberts v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 513 S.W.2d 870; Walling v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 437 S.W.2d 563; Porter v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 366, 357 S.W.2d 401. When the property referred to in an indictment belongs to a corporation, it is not only permissible but also the better pleading practice to allege ownership in a natural person acting for the corporation. Castillo v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 469 S.W.2d 572; Walling v. State, supra.
The State properly alleged ownership in the regional supervisor of the corporation. That the proof at trial showed the true owner to be the corporation presents no variance and appellant's complaint is without merit insofar as it contends otherwise.
Next we must consider whether the evidence was sufficient to show that Minyard was an owner of the property within the meaning of the arson statute. V.T.C.A. Penal Code Sec. 28.02 provides in pertinent part:
'A person commits an offense if he starts a fire or causes an explosion:
'(1) without the effective consent of the owner and with intent to destroy or damage the owner's building or habitation.'
Further, V.T.C.A. Penal Code Secs. 1.07(a)(24) and (28) provide:
Thus, three separate means are provided by statute in which the State might fulfill its burden of showing Minyard was the owner of the property: that he had (1) title, (2) possession, or (3) a right to possession superior to that of appellant. Title to the property was in his employer, the petroleum corporation. With regard to Minyard's possession or right to possession, however, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Domain Prot., LLC v. Sea Wasp, LLC
...that interest. See Manning v. State , 68 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000, pet. ref'd ) (citing Eaton v. State , 533 S.W.2d 33, 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) ) ("The State can prove ownership in three ways: (1) by showing title, (2) by proving possession, or (3) by showing that th......
-
Garza v. State
...the property was taken from the custody and control of a natural person acting for the corporation or like entity. Eaton v. State, 533 S.W.2d 33 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Castillo v. State, 469 S.W.2d 572, 573 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). It is then necessary to prove this natural person is the special owne......
-
Compton v. State
...person acting for the corporation. Article 21.08, V.A.C.C.P.; Commons v. State, 575 S.W.2d 518 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Eaton v. State, 533 S.W.2d 33 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Roberts v. State, 513 S.W.2d 870 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). However, when specifying this natural person, it is equally important to sat......
-
Vasquez v. State
...right to possess the property than did the accused. V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Section 28.02, Section 1.07(a)(24) and (28); Eaton v. State, 533 S.W.2d 33 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude there is sufficient evidence that the house bel......
-
Offenses against property
...to prove in arson cases that the alleged owner had a greater right to possession of the property than the accused. Eaton v. State , 533 S.W.2d 33 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976). §8:50 Corpus Delicti Establishing the corpus delicti of arson requires the State to establish that someone started the fire......
-
Table of cases
...East v. State 702 S.W.2d 606 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) 6:390.a Easter v. State 536 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) 8:860 Eaton v. State 533 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) 8:40, 8:80, 8:520, 8:711 Ector v. State 634 S.W.2d 69 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1982, pet. ref’d) 8:340 Eddings v. Oklahoma......