Gibson v. State
| Decision Date | 20 February 1907 |
| Citation | 100 S.W. 776 |
| Parties | GIBSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallam County; Ira Webster, Judge.
Frank Gibson was convicted of theft, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Reese Tatum and Chas. D. Stepp, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Astty. Gen., for State.
Appellant was convicted of theft over the value of $50, and his punishment assessed at three years' confinement in the penitentiary.
The evidence in this case shows, in substance, that the prosecuting witness, Adolph Flentege, went to a hotel which was run by appellant in the town of Dalhart, and secured a room for the night. Upon retiring he placed his pants under his head, in a pocket of which was his pocketbook, with $72 in money. Prosecuting witness swears that when he woke up in the morning, between 6 and 7 o'clock, he found appellant in the room, sitting on the floor, with his (prosecuting witness') pants, and searching through his pants for his pocketbook, which he secured and left the room, just as prosecuting witness waked up.
Appellant's first assignment of error complains that the court erred in not granting defendant a new trial for the reason that the verdict and judgment are not supported by the evidence in the case; that the defendant stands charged in the indictment with the offense of theft of $72, of the value of $72, and there being no evidence in the record to support said charge, as the value of the money is not shown to have been proven by the record. The evidence in the case shows that the witness said the amount of the money was $72. This, we take it, is synonymous with the value. Appellant complains of the charge of the court in not telling the jury that the value of the money must be $72. We do not think that this error was calculated to injure appellant. It was $72 in silver and currency, and there could have been no possible injury to appellant in failing to state that its value was $72. Menear v. State, 30 Tex. App. 475, 17 S. W. 1082.
We think the court did not err in failing to charge that the facts show theft from the person, since the facts detailed above show that the property was not taken off prosecuting witness' person, but from the pants taken from under the head of his bed.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sims v. State
...v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 15, 35 S. W. 164. And that the court will take judicial knowledge of the value of United States money. Gibson v. State, 100 S. W. 776; Sowles v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 18, 105 S. W. 178; Nelson v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 205, 32 S. W. 900; Menear v. State, It is also t......
-
State v. Jones
...465 (1968)Texas: Mack v. State, 465 S.W.2d 941 (Tex.Cr.App.1971)Cousins v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 5, 224 S.W.2d 260 (1949)Gibson v. State, 100 S.W. 776 (Tex.Cr.App.1907)Utah: State v. Lucero, 28 Utah 2d 61, 498 P.2d 350 (1972)Wisconsin: Hawpetoss v. State, 52 Wis.2d 71, 187 N.W.2d 823 (1971)3......
-
Earls v. State
...Cf. Bassett v. State, 83 Tex.Cr.R. 479, 204 S.W. 112 (1918); Day v. State, 53 Tex.Cr.R. 648, 111 S.W. 408 (1908); Gibson v. State, 100 S.W. 776 (Tex.Cr.App.1907); and V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 31.03, Practice Commentary. While the specific requirements of Sec. (1) are no longer contained in......
-
McAdams v. State
...476 ; Burries v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 13 . And that the court will take judicial knowledge of the value of United States money. Gibson v. State, 100 S. W. 776; Sowles v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 17 ; Nelson v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 205 ; and Menear v. State, In our opinion the pleading descri......