Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 02 February 1910 |
| Citation | 125 S.W. 16 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; Edward Dwyer, Judge.
Tom Johnson was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was charged in the district court of Bexar county, by indictment returned therein on October 8, 1909, with the offense of burglary in breaking and entering a certain house controlled by one J. A. Potts with the intent to commit theft. At a trial had in said court on the 19th day of October of the same year appellant was convicted of the crime charged, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for three years.
While presented in more than one form, the sole question is as to whether the facts and evidence in the case presented and raised the issue of one McCormick, the state's witness, being an accomplice, and whether, in the light of all the testimony, the court was required to give a charge in respect to accomplice testimony. There was no other witness connecting appellant with the possession of the property, and without the testimony of this witness there was practically no evidence against appellant.
We desire to commend the manner of the preparation of the record and statement of facts in the case. In the statement of facts it is recited that it was proved beyond doubt that, on or about the time alleged in the indictment, the house in question was broken into in the nighttime and a set of single harness was taken therefrom; that the house was entered by force by the party who took the harness; that the harness, about two months after being stolen, was found in the possession of Sam Johnson; and that Sam Johnson purchased the harness from one Henry McCormick. The statement of facts also recites that the facts show beyond doubt that the entry into said house and the taking of the harness constitute both burglary and theft. It is also recited that there was no testimony of any kind connecting or tending to connect the defendant, Tom Johnson, with the burglary and theft, except the testimony of the witness Henry McCormick. The statement then sets out at some length the testimony of this witness.
He states that on or about the 5th day of June, 1909, he bought a set of harness from appellant, for which he paid $2, which he later sold to the witness Sam Johnson. In reply to the inquiry as to how he happened to buy the harness, he stated appellant drove up in a wagon and asked him if he wanted to buy a set of harness, to which he replied that he did "if it was his, and was all right"; that he then asked him what he wanted for the harness, and he said $2, which he gave him. On cross-examination he stated that he was employed by the Woodward Carriage Company, and that his duties were to keep automobiles, harness, etc., and do pretty much everything like putting up buggies, washing buggies, automobiles, and harness, and that he sold harness if anyone came in the store and wanted them, and that he was acquainted with the value of harness, and that the harness in question was worth $25 or $30. Being asked the question, "At the time you bought this harness from this negro for $2, you knew it was a $25 or $30 set of harness?" he replied, "No, sir; I didn't." Being asked, "When did you find out it was a $25 or $30 set of harness?" he replied, "Somebody said the man paid $40 for it; I didn't know what it was worth." Being then pressed with the question, "What does Woodward sell such a set of harness for?" he answered, "$25 or $30; $35 sometimes; depends upon what kind of a harness it was." He makes, also, the following more detailed statement of his conversation with appellant at the time he bought the harness: He states further: He also states that, when he came to sell the harness, he took them to Johnson's house in a wagon. On redirect examination the witness stated he had lived in San Antonio about 25 years, and for some 17 or 18 years of that time had been employed by the Woodward Carriage Company, and that appellant brought the harness over there in a sack to him, and sold them to him. He also states that when he bought the harness he took them out of the buggy, and took them right down into a cellar; that he paid appellant for them before he took them to the cellar; that he did not open the sack out on the street.
In this condition of the testimony, appellant requested the court to give the following in charge to the jury: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Grimmett
... ... principals in the first or second degree or merely as ... accessories before or after the fact. ( Cross v ... People, 47 Ill. 152, 95 Am. Dec. 474; In re ... Rowe, 77 F. 161, 23 C. C. A. 103; Polk v ... State, 36 Ark. 117; Johnson v. State, 58 Tex ... Cr. 244, 125 S.W. 16; Hudspeth v. State, 50 Ark ... 534, 9 S.W. 1; Moynahan v. People, 63 Colo. 433, 167 ... P. 1175; Jones v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. 559, 129 S.W ... 1118; Newton v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 622, 138 S.W ... 708; Stevens v. State, 111 Ark. 299, 163 S.W ... ...
-
Stevens v. State
...and whether such person was present or participating in the crime or not." The same great jurist said the same thing in Johnson v. State, 58 Tex.Cr.R. 244, 125 S.W. 16. In Scales v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 433, 217 S.W. 149, exactly the same language in a charge is approved as correct, Judge Mo......
-
Hester v. State
...115; 111 Ark. 299; Terry and Cornall v. State, ms. op.; Corpus Juris, vol. 16, pp. 139, 670; 130 Ark. 353; 128 Id. 452; 63 Id. 457; 125 S.W. 16; 36 Ark. 126. 4. jury should have been instructed not to consider the testimony of the witnesses, Cole and Spillman, as being corroborative each of......
-
Reyna v. State
...he knew or suspected were stolen was guilty of receiving stolen property and so was accomplice as matter of law); Johnson v. State, 125 S.W. 16, 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 1910) (man who purchased harness suspecting it was stolen was accomplice to theft of harness); Walker v. State, 37 S.W. 423, 4......