Harris v. State

• Decision Date: 13 June 1900
• Citation: 57 S.W. 833
• Parties: HARRIS v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

57 S.W. 833

HARRIS v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 13, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Hamilton county; J. W. Parker, Special Judge.

James M. Harris was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he appeals. Reversed.

J. C. Main and Eidson & Eidson, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years, and he prosecutes this appeal.

The indictment is in two counts,—one charging theft of a certain head of cattle, the property of W. M. Savage; and the other charging the receiving of said head of cattle from John M. Harris, who is alleged to have stolen the same. The court submitted both counts to the jury, but the conviction, as stated, was on the second count, for receiving the alleged stolen animal knowing it to have been stolen.

The court did not err in overruling the motion for continuance, inasmuch as the jury did not convict appellant of theft of said head of cattle, and the absent witness' (Cris Naves') testimony would only have tended to exonerate appellant from the theft of said cattle, and to fasten such theft on John Harris, the brother of appellant.

Appellant complains that the court erred in refusing to give his requested charge in regard to the purchase of said head of cattle from Jake Ogle by Kirg Gann. In reply to this, it is sufficient to say that appellant was not prosecuted for this transaction at all, the testimony concerning this being used simply as tending to show guilty knowledge of appellant at the time he may have received the animal from his brother John Harris, and the jury could not have misunderstood the object of said testimony. Appellant was charged in the indictment with receiving said animal from John Harris, and they were instructed before they could convict appellant they must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he received the animal in question from John Harris, knowing at the time it was stolen.

Appellant also complains that the court erred in not giving his special requested instructions, predicated on the proposition that, if John Harris took the animal believing he had a right to do so from Jim Evans, to acquit defendant, either of theft or of receiving stolen property. Now, as to the charge on this subject, in regard to theft of said animal by appellant, he having been acquitted of that offense, it is not necessary to discuss it. We would remark that the court...