Falcone v. State

Decision Date27 November 1918
Docket Number(No. 5211.)
PartiesFALCONE v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from Criminal District Court, Travis County; James R. Hamilton, Judge.

Vincent Falcone was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he appeals. Affirmed.

E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property; his punishment being assessed at four years' confinement in the penitentiary.

The evidence discloses that Otto Best, Roberta Armstrong, and Alberta Robinson burglarized a house belonging to Mrs. Hannah Melasky, and took from it valuable jewelry, alleged in the indictment to be worth $675, and that after this was done appellant received it from Frank Kyle and concealed it. The evidence is sufficient to support the finding of the jury that the property was taken from Mrs. Hannah Melasky's house, and received and turned over to Kyle, who in turn passed it to appellant, and received money as a consideration for the reception of this jewelry. The jewelry stolen was mainly diamonds in one form or another.

It is contended that appellant, at the time he received it, did not know it was stolen. Such was appellant's testimony; he being the only witness who testified in his own behalf. But the evidence shows that after he received the property, although under his testimony he may not have known it was stolen at the time he received it, he concealed it knowing that fact. We are of opinion that this sufficiently makes out a case to justify the verdict of the jury. There are no bills of exception to any ruling or action of the court, either as to the admission or rejection of testimony, or charges given. As this record presents the matter, we are of opinion that the state has sufficiently made out a case to justify the conviction.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Hardeman v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 25, 1977
    ...Salcido v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 281, 70 S.W.2d 706 (1934); Rutherford v, State, 85 Tex.Cr.R. 7, 209 S.W. 745 (1919); Falcone v. State, 84 Tex.Cr.R. 279, 206 S.W. 845 (1918); Kahanek v. State, 83 Tex.Cr.R. 19, 201 S.W. 994 (1918); Cuilla v. State, Since this conviction is for concealing stol......
  • Thomason v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 29, 1944
    ...146 S.W.2d 997; McLeroy v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 118, 97 S.W.2d 184; Hicks v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 595, 83 S. W.2d 349; Falcone v. State, 84 Tex.Cr.R. 279, 206 S.W. 845; Rutherford v. State, 85 Tex.Cr.R. 7, 209 S.W. 745; Kahanek v. State, 83 Tex.Cr.R. 19, 201 S.W. 994; 36 Tex.Jur., p. 343, s......
  • McLeroy v. State, 18236.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 29, 1936
    ...the alleged stolen car which he had in possession, after he admittedly found out that same was stolen. In the cases of Falcone v. State, 84 Tex.Cr.R. 279, 206 S.W. 845, Kahanek v. State, 83 Tex.Cr.R. 19, 201 S. W. 994, and Rutherford v. State, 85 Tex. Cr.R. 7, 209 S.W. 745, this court said ......
  • Wallace v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 27, 1918

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT