Galloway v. State, 16591.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 16591.,16591. |
| Parties | GALLOWAY v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Liberty County; Thos. B. Coe, Judge.
Robert Galloway was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Jones & Linscome, of Beaumont, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is robbery; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.
The prosecuting witness, T. C. Newton, was transporting a quantity of beer in his automobile from Louisiana to Texas. Appellant and J. E. Swindel drove up behind him and forced him to stop. Approaching him, they asked him what he had in his automobile. He replied, "Nothing." They then advised him that they were going to place him under arrest for transporting intoxicating liquor, as they could tell that the car was "loaded." After finding the beer, appellant and Swindel ordered the prosecuting witness to get back in his car, telling him they were going to take him to Beaumont and place him under arrest. Swindel got in the car with the prosecuting witness and drove toward Beaumont. Appellant followed them in his car. When they were a short distance beyond the town of Dayton, the prosecuting witness told Swindel that he knew him and appellant. Further, he told Swindel that he would like to get out of the car. Swindel replied, "Get the hell out of here." Leaving him in the road, appellant and Swindel drove on toward Beaumont. Upon reaching town, the prosecuting witness reported the occurrence to officers. An officer of the city of Beaumont instituted a search for the lost car and found it on the same day it had been taken on Steelton street in the city of Beaumont. The beer had been removed and apparently was not recovered. Neither appellant nor Swindel were in possession of the car at the time it was found. The keys were in the ignition switch.
The indictment charged the taking of the automobile; there being no averment that appellant took possession of the beer. Appellant timely and properly excepted to the charge of the court for its failure to instruct the jury to acquit him if they believed he took the automobile, not for the purpose of appropriating it to his own use and depriving the owner of its value, but only for the purpose of transporting the beer. In other words, appellant sought to have the jury instructed that the mere temporary appropriation of the car with no intent to steal it would not constitute robbery. It is the announcement of the decisions that robbery is an aggravated form of theft. Hence the intent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Traxler v. State
...Defendant does cite several Texas cases that are clearly in point in supporting his position here advanced. 7 In Galloway v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 294, 71 S.W.2d 871, the evidence developed that the defendant in that case and another drove up behind the prosecuting witness, posed as officers......
-
Griffin v. State
...ed. 1974). This defense is equally available in cases of robbery, which require proof of theft or attempted theft. Galloway v. State, 126 Tex.Crim. 294, 71 S.W.2d 871 (1934). The appellant did not request an instruction on temporary use, so he can not (and does not) complain on appeal that ......
-
Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Goode, 10926.
...v. State, 18 Tex.App. 270, 274, 51 Am.Rep. 309; Harris v. State, 29 Tex.App. 101, 14 S.W. 390, 25 Am.St. Rep. 717; Galloway v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 294, 71 S.W.2d 871; Cupit v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 40, 92 S.W.2d 244; 16 C.J., It is thought the Brewton and Smith cases, upon which appellant s......
-
Prescott v. State
...purpose entirely. There is simply no evidence showing appellant intended only a temporary use of the car. See Galloway v. State, 71 S.W.2d 871, 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 1934) (use of car was temporary because defendant made it clear he wanted the beerinside the car, not the car itself); Kiser, ......