Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 30 November 1910 |
| Parties | JONES v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bowie County; P. A. Turner, Judge.
Almore Jones was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Hart, Mahaffey & Thomas, for appellant. John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for burglary with a penalty of two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
The bill of indictment charged the defendant with the burglarious entry at night with the intent to commit the crime of theft. The house burglarized was charged as belonging to G. B. Thaggard. This witness testified that he lived in the town of Texarkana, and on the night of March 23, 1910, some one entered his harness house and stole therefrom a set of harness; that the house was not locked, but it had a door that he kept closed and buttoned; that he remembers that he closed the door that night; that the next morning when he got up his set of harness was gone; that it was a set of new double harness, with lines that he had recently purchased, and was of the value of $20 or $25; that this occurred on Wednesday night, and on the following Friday he recovered the harness from a merchant in Texarkana by the name of Bobo. He says that the defendant had worked for him as a teamster, he (the witness) keeping a large number of teams and doing hauling generally; that defendant quit working for him seven or eight days before the burglary. He further testified that he saw tracks around the house, one of these tracks appearing to have been made by a No. 11 shoe and the other track smaller; that defendant was a large man and wore about a No. 11 shoe. A. B. Jordan testified that on Friday morning he saw a notice in the paper about the loss of some harness by Mr. Thaggard; that he was clerking for Mr. Bobo at his store. He says that on Friday about 1 o'clock defendant came to the store and wanted to know if they wanted a set of harness, or if he knew of anybody who did want to buy a set; that witness asked him where he had his harness, and defendant pointed up to a camp. The witness told him to go and get the harness; that, while witness did not desire to buy the harness, he knew a man he thought would, and told him to get the harness and bring them up to the store and leave them there, as the man would be there about 2 or 3 o'clock; that defendant went and got the harness and brought them to the store and went on to a shingle mill where he was at work. Witness then notified Mr. Thaggard, who came and identified the harness and took them off; that defendant did not say where he got the harness, but said he had them at a camp; that when he brought the harness back he told the witness the harness belonged to his father, and his father had sold the team and had no further use for the harness. This is a sufficient statement of the facts to explain the points in issue.
On the trial of the case the court charged the jury, giving them the usual definition of burglary and theft. Also gave in charge to the jury, in his definition of burglary, the following: However, when the court applied the law to the facts of the case, he stated to the jury that before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moreno v. State
...of the witness Duncan in making the sale. Consequently there was no error in refusing special charge No. 5 requested. Jones v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 426, 132 S. W. 476. All the other special charges requested by appellant were given, except the two which presented the theory: "Inasmuch as t......
-
State v. Gendusa
... ... 2, ... is the following citation: " Breaking' does not ... necessarily mean breaking of lock or of a fastening, simply ... pushing open the door meets all the requirements. State ... v. davenport, [2 Boyce 12, 25 Del. 12], 77 A. 967, 1909; ... Jones v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 426, 132 S.W. 476, ... In ... State v. Plumlee, 177 La. 687, at page 698, 149 So ... 425, at page 428, this court held that: ‘ Breaking as ... an element of burglary may consist of merely opening a door, ... though unlocked, or the removal or displacement ... ...
-
Warden v. State, 35517
...463. The entry into a house through a door that is closed is an entry by force and sufficient to constitute burglary. Jones v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 426, 132 S.W. 476; Matelski v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 217, 71 S.W.2d 272; Haigh v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 189, 205 S.W.2d 992; Thomas v. State, supr......
-
Girvin v. State
... ... The facts show that it was made contemporaneously with his arrest, at a time when his possession was first being directly 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. 1333 ... Objection was made to the testimony of Roy Porter, owner of the car, because it affirmatively appeared that a guardian had been appointed to handle his finances, under a ... ...