Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 20 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 51778,51778 |
| Citation | 541 S.W.2d 185 |
| Parties | John Edward JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Joel W. Cantrick, Austin (Court-appointed on appeal), for appellant.
Curtis L. Owen, Dist. Atty., and Frank McClendon, III, Asst. Dist. Atty., Tyler, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for aggravated robbery. The jury assessed punishment at fifteen (15) years' confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections. 1
By his first ground of error, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. More specifically, appellant contends that there is insufficient evidence to show that he was acting 'in the course of committing theft.' Furthermore, appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to show an intent to obtain or maintain control of the property. For a conviction of aggravated robbery to be sustained, both elements must be proved. Earl v. State, 514 S.W.2d 273, 274 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
We preface our summary of the evidence by noting that a charge on circumstantial evidence and an instruction on the law of principals was given. 2
The record reflects that on December 1, 1974, appellant and three companions, all dressed alike, approached a Safeway store located in Tyler. Appellant and one companion, Michael DeWayne Hawkins, entered the store. Because of a prior telephone call alerting the Tyler Police, officers had been dispatched and were waiting at various locations around the store. One officer testified that he observed Hawkins holding a shotgun and standing in front of the manager's booth in the store. After commanding Hawkins to drop his gun, the officer chased Hawkins down an aisle to the back of the store. Hawkins was later arrested at the back of the store. While the pursuit and arrest of Hawkins were occurring, the appellant was observed by another officer in front of one of the store aisles. This officer testified that the appellant had a pistol in his hand and that customers near the appellant were getting underneath the counters. After this observation by the officer, he ran inside the store and shouted at the appellant to stop. Appellant then began to run down the aisle and when he turned and pointed his pistol at the officer, the officer shot and wounded him. Appellant was then arrested.
The manager of the store testified that while at the back of the store he was in fear of imminent bodily injury when Hawkins pointed the shotgun at him prior to Hawkins' arrest. The manager further testified that there was approximately $4,200 in the store.
Since there was no evidence of a demand, taking or attempted taking of money or other property by the appellant or Hawkins, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to show that he acted in the course of committing theft or had the intent to obtain or maintain control over any property.
In Long v. State, 47 Tex.Cr.R. 296, 83 S.W. 384 (1904), the defendant approached two individuals, pointed his gun at them and said, This Court held that this was sufficient evidence to allow the jury to find that the defendant had the specific intent to rob.
In Gerzin v. State, 447 S.W.2d 925 (Tex.Cr.App.1969), Cert. denied, 398 U.S. 912, 90 S.Ct. 1710, 26 L.Ed.2d 73 (1970), the defendant walked into a liquor store, pointed his shotgun at the attendant and stated, 'I guess you know what this means.' We held that there were sufficient facts and circumstances for the jury to conclude that the defendant had the intent to rob.
In the instant case, the appellant was observed with a gun in his hand while customers around him were trying to get underneath the counters. His companion Hawkins pointed a gun at the manager in the back of the store, after apparently realizing the mission had been thwarted, and stated, 'Where are the keys to this damn back door.' While neither appellant nor his companion actually demanded the money from the manager, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to allow the jury to find that they were acting with intent to obtain control of the property within the meaning of V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Sec....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drew v. State
...to steal may be inferred from actions or conduct. See also Banks v. State, 471 S.W.2d 811, 812 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Johnson v. State, 541 S.W.2d 185, 187 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). In Fierro, supra, there was no verbal demand made of the victim for money or property prior to the shooting, however, it......
-
Nored v. State, 05-93-00208-CR
...If a person does something, it is a reasonable deduction from the evidence that they intended to do it. See Johnson v. State, 541 S.W.2d 185, 187 (Tex.Crim.App.1976) (criminal intent); FDIC v. F & A Equip. Leasing, 854 S.W.2d 681, 688 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1993, no writ) (intent). Viewing the e......
-
Edwards v. State
...of property may be inferred from appellant's actions and a verbal demand for money or property is not required. Johnson v. State, 541 S.W.2d 185, 187 (Tex.Crim.App.1976) ; Birl v. State, 763 S.W.2d 860, 863 (Tex.App.–Texarkana 1988, no pet.) ; Chastain v. State, 667 S.W.2d 791, 795 (Tex.App......
-
Bunton v. State, No. 03-05-00717-CR (Tex. App. 6/27/2007), 03-05-00717-CR.
...App. 2001); King, 157 S.W.3d at 874. A verbal demand for the property is not a talisman of an intent to steal. See Johnson v. State, 541 S.W.2d 185, 187 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976); King, 157 S.W.2d at 874; Garza, 937 S.W.2d at 570-71. The attempt to commit or the commission of theft in a robber......