Howard v. State, 40742
Decision Date | 01 November 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 40742,40742 |
Citation | 420 S.W.2d 706 |
Parties | Donald N. HOWARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Joe Bob Brown, Amarillo, for appellant.
Gene Compton, Dist. Atty., Toby A. Priolo, Asst. Dist. Atty., Amarillo, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is Theft By False Pretext over the value of $50.00; the punishment assessed by the jury at ten (10) years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.
Appellant's conviction stems from the passing of a worthless instrument as his payroll check. We do not deem a recitation of the facts necessary for a proper disposition of the grounds of error raised.
Appellant initially contends that his conviction for theft by false pretext under an ordinary theft indictment cannot stand, and that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the indictment. It is this writer's opinion that, in all fairness, the indictment should allege an offense of theft by false pretext if that is the offense upon which the State expects to rely in order that an accused might properly be apprised of the charge upon which he is called to defend. Nevertheless, it is well established in this state that under an ordinary indictment for theft charging that the property was taken without the consent of the owner, a conviction may be had for theft even though the taking was with the consent of the owner if the proof shows that such consent was obtained by any false pretext and the property then appropriated. 5 Branch's Anno.P.C. 2d Ed. Sec. 2680, p. 126. Only recently this proposition of law was reaffirmed by this Court in Cameron v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 401 S.W.2d 809. See also Cameron v. Hauck, 383 F.2d 966 (5th Cir., Sept. 15, 1967).
The proof in the case at bar demonstrates a case of theft by false pretext. Therefore, appellant's first contention is without merit.
In his second ground of error appellant urges that the trial court erred in making a comment during the trial of the case which conveyed to the jury his opinion of the case.
The first two defense witnesses were appellant's wife and mother. Appellant's wife testified that after appellant had been placed in custody in Potter County he requested and received a visit from a psychiatrist.
After the mother was excused as a witness, the record reflects the trial judge said:
Subsequently it appears in the record that appellant's court-appointed counsel had made arrangements for appellant, while in custody, to be examined by Dr. J. Y. Lara.
The remarks complained of were made immediately prior to the noon recess, and it is not clear from the record to whom they were addressed, or whether the jury was present or not. Appellant concedes that such remarks were not a comment on the weight of the evidence, but contends they were calculated...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. State
...38.05, supra, the comment by the court must be such that it is reasonably calculated to prejudice the accused's rights. Howard v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 420 S.W.2d 706. We are will aware of those cases where reversal resulted because the trial court's remarks to the jury empaneled in criminal ......
-
Proenza v. State
...weight of the evidence" in its jury charge).12 McClory v. State , 510 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (citing Howard v. State , 420 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) ; Collins v. State , 376 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964) ).13 See Gray v. State , 159 S.W.3d 95, 98 (Tex. Crim. App.......
-
Burge v. State
...under Article 38.05, supra. Garcia v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 427 S.W.2d 897; Byrd v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 421 S.W.2d 915; Howard v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 420 S.W.2d 706 and cases there cited. This is particularly true in view of the court's prompt instruction to the jury to disregard. Hearn v. St......
-
Norwood v. State
...is obvious she is hostile,' is not preserved for review absent an objection. See Ferrell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 429 S.W.2d 901; Howard v. State, 420 S.W.2d 706; Franklin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 422; Steese v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 269, 340 S.W.2d Appellant next contends that the co......