Hodge v. State
| Decision Date | 15 November 1899 |
| Citation | 53 S.W. 862 |
| Parties | HODGE v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Hopkins county; Howard Templeton, Judge.
Bud Hodge was convicted of cattle theft, and from the judgment he appeals. Reversed.
King & Conner and Crosby & Dinsmore, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant's first bill of exception was reserved to that portion of the court's charge which instructed the jury: "If the defendant bought the alleged stolen animal from one Tims, while they were running on the range, and afterwards took the same from the range, and at the time he so bought and took the cattle he believed they were the property of Tims, then defendant would not be guilty; but if, at the time he so bought and took said cattle, he knew the cattle were not the property of Tims, then said purchase would not justify him in taking the cattle, and would be no defense to the charge against him in this case." We believe the giving of this charge, under the facts of this case, was error. There is no evidence, as we understand this record, that appellant took the cattle from the range under the purchase from Tims. Appellant's claim was that he purchased two head of cattle from Tims, for which he paid him $22, but there is no evidence that he went upon the range and gathered them. The presumption would rather be that Tims delivered the cattle. If appellant purchased the cattle from Tims, and received them from him, knowing they were stolen, he would not be guilty of theft, unless he had some connection with the theft in such manner as to make him a principal. If Tims stole the cattle, and appellant knew that fact, and purchased them from him subsequently, he would not be a principal, and could not have been convicted under this indictment. He would simply be a receiver of stolen property. So, under the facts of this case, this portion of the charge should not have been given.
Appellant requested, in writing, a charge submitting the issue of circumstantial evidence, which was refused by the court, and exception reserved. This charge should have been given. This is a case of purely circumstantial evidence. The state's case was based upon possession of property that did not belong to appellant, but did belong to Lindley. He accounted for this by stating he had purchased it from Tims. So far as we are aware, this state of case has always been held to be one of circumstantial evidence.
Appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Girvin v. State
...challenged, and was admissible against him under the uniform holdings of this court. Ward v. State, 41 Tex. 612; Hodge v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 231, 53 S. W. 862; Jones v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 426, 132 S. W. 476. For a full collation of authorities, see Branch's P. C. p. Objection was made......
-
Hermosillo v. State
...the theft, or when charged with or informed that he is suspected of the theft. Branch's Annotated Penal Code, § 2464; Hodge v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 231, 53 S. W. 862. Mr. Branch, in his Annotated Penal Code, § 2464, further states the rule as follows: "The explanation, to be admissible, mu......
-
Murrell v. State
...was first being directly questioned, and was admissible under the holding of this court in the following cases. Hodge v. State, 41 Tex.Cr. R. 229, 53 S.W. 862; Jones v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 426, 132 S.W. 476; Harris v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 410, 10 S.W.2d 551; Girvin v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 3......
-
Gilbreath v. State
...possession was first directly or circumstantially challenged, or when charged with the theft. 5 Branch 2d 98, Sec. 2651; Hodge v. State, 41 Tex.Cr.R. 229, 53 S.W. 862; Johnson v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 468, 308 S.W.2d It is concluded that the proffered testimony of Officer Hutchions was admis......