Forward v. State

• Decision Date: 29 April 1914
• Docket Number: (No. 3108.)
• Citation: 166 S.W. 725
• Parties: FORWARD v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

166 S.W. 725

FORWARD v. STATE.

(No. 3108.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 29, 1914.

Appeal from District Court, Robertson County; J. C. Scott, Judge.

Amos Forward was convicted of larceny from the person, and he appeals. Affirmed.

V. B. Hudson, of Bryan, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Appellant was convicted for stealing a watch from the person of Hezekiah Dobbins, and his punishment assessed at the lowest prescribed by law.

Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict, and within and as a part of that, that the testimony of Chris Tatum, who was an accomplice, was not sufficiently corroborated.

The evidence by Dobbins is to the effect: That on the morning of about May 21, 1913, he went in a saloon, in Hearne to get a drink of beer, and as he walked in he pulled out and looked at his watch and then replaced it in his pocket. The watch was in his side pants watch pocket, and to it was attached a fob. That appellant was standing up at the bar when he walked up and called for beer. Appellant at the time asked him to get him (appellant) also a glass of beer, which he refused to do. That appellant, while he (Dobbins) was at the bar, walked right up by his side, and they stood there about 5 or 10 minutes. That appellant then called him off in the back just out of the saloon, exhibited to him his (appellant's) little old silver watch, and tried to get him to give him $3 on it. He refused that. That Dobbins then started out of the saloon door, felt for his watch, and missed it, and at once accused appellant of getting it, which appellant vigorously denied. Dobbins swore: "While I was in that saloon, there was no one close enough to me to get my watch, but the defendant, Amos Forward, no one else at all." Dobbins at once went and complained to the officer that his watch had been stolen from him. The officer searched appellant, but did not then find the watch on him. That Chris Tatum, when he (Dobbins) went in the saloon, was sitting in a chair over by the heater and never got up out of the chair while he was in the saloon.

The evidence in no way puts either the saloon keeper or his porter in such position or proximity to Dobbins, while he was in the saloon, as for any suspicion even to attach to them that either got the watch. The accomplice, Tatum, testified substantially as did Dobbins: That he was sitting back of the heater the whole time Dobbins was in the saloon and never got near him, but that appellant and Dobbins were standing close together right in front of the bar, and that appellant called Dobbins back in the rear of the saloon, and that he never got up out of the chair the whole time Dobbins was in the saloon. That, after remaining in the saloon some little time after Dobbins accused appellant of stealing his watch and appellant denied it, he (Tatum) went out of the saloon and to a Mexican chile joint. That appellant then came in the chile joint, called him out, told him to take the watch over to a pawnbroker's, pawn it, and get money on it, and he would divide with him the money. That appellant then delivered to him Dobbins' watch, and he pawned it with the pawnbroker, got a dollar on it, took the dollar back and delivered it to appellant, and appellant gave him half of it. That he saw Dobbins and told Dobbins if he would give him $2.50, he would go and get his watch. Dobbins, under the direction of the officer, gave him $2.50, and before he got back to Dobbins with the watch he was arrested. He denied that he had it, and the officers searched him and could not find it and then put him in jail. The officer then went to the pawnbroker and found out that Tatum had pawned the watch, a short time afterwards came and redeemed it, and then the officer went to the calaboose where Tatum was confined, and, after talking with him, Tatum got the watch out of the calaboose where he had hid it and delivered it to the officer. The watch was thoroughly identified by all the witnesses as the watch Dobbins stated was stolen from him in the saloon by appellant. This accomplice, Tatum, had been himself convicted for stealing this watch at the previous term of court, but the court granted him a new trial, and the case was still pending against him at the time he testified in this case.

It has been long settled by the many decisions of this court what is essential to the corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice. We think unquestionably, under the law and decisions, the testimony of the accomplice, Tatum, was amply and fully corroborated. Nourse v. State, 2 Tex. App. 316; Jones v. State, 4 Tex. App. 531; Tooney v. State, 5 Tex. App. 193; Simms v. State, 8 Tex. App. 243; Clanton v. State, 13 Tex. App. 157; Moore v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 415, 83 S. W. 1117; Nash v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 264, 134 S. W. 709; Warren v. State, 149 S. W. 135; and many other cases unnecessary to cite. The testimony in this case is clearly sufficient to sustain the verdict.

This case was tried February 6, 1914, long after the Act of April 5, 1913 (Acts 33d Leg. c. 138, had been in effect, amending article 743 and previous articles as to the charge of the court. Before the argument began, the court...