Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 13 December 1905 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Trinity County; Gordon Boone, Judge.
D. J. Johnson was convicted of hog theft, and he appeals. Reversed.
J. P. Stevenson, Jno. I. Moore, and G. C. Clegg, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is a hog-theft case. The evidence is very sharply contested, as to whether the hogs belonged to J. B. Stepp, or the alleged owner, V. M. Jordan. Stepp was the brother-in-law of appellant. He and appellant went out into what the witnesses call "the bottom." Appellant found one of his hogs, tried to drive it home, but did not succeed. Stepp found a sow and some shoats, which he claimed; and appellant assisted him in driving them to appellant's house. It was too late in the day, they claimed, to reach Stepp's residence. That evening, Jordan and some others, ascertaining that some hogs had been driven out of the "bottom," followed the trail. Night coming on, they stopped. On the next morning, en route to the place where they ceased their trail the night before, they met Stepp and Johnson. A conversation occurred in regard to the hogs, between Stepp and Jordan, and the parties present, in which appellant seems to have taken very little interest. During this conversation, appellant disclaimed any interest in or connection with the hogs other than assisting his brother-in-law, Stepp, in driving them. His explanation, which seems to have been unquestioned as to the fact that he made it, was that he had no interest, and claimed no interest, in the hogs. He also testified to this on the stand. Exception is reserved, because of the failure of the court to submit his explanation and statements in regard to his connection with the hogs, to the jury. The exception is well taken. The jury should have been told that, if he was simply assisting Stepp in driving the hogs, without any interest in them, believing they were Stepp's, he should be acquitted, and the state should disprove these statements. The court submitted the case upon the theory that they were principals in the theft, acting together. This being true, under the circumstances of defendant's testimony and statements, his theory ought to have been submitted. The only charge in this regard, as we understand this record, was that the hogs were the property of Jordan, and not of Stepp, and that appellant, knowing that fact, assisted Stepp in stealing them. As before stated, the evidence is very sharply...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...DAVIDSON, P. J. This is the second appeal. In this, as on the former appeal, appellant was allotted the death penalty. Johnson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 90 S. W. 633. The evidence in this record is widely different from that presented on the former appeal. Much of the evidence with reference......
-
Johnson v. State
...strenuously insists that the facts do not sustain the conviction. This case was before this court on the former appeal. 90 S. W. 633, 14 Tex. Ct. Rep. 380. The facts are about the same now as then. We believe on a careful consideration of the testimony there was enough evidence to have auth......