Jordan v. State, 49339
| Decision Date | 12 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 49339,49339 |
| Parties | Raymond JORDAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Marvin Odell Teague, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Clyde F. DeWitt, III and Ned Morris, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
ARCHIE BROWN, Commissioner.
The conviction is for receiving and concealing stolen property; the punishment, two years' imprisonment.
Appellant complains that a fatal variance exists between the indictment and the proof in that the indictment alleges that appellant received the property 'from person or persons unknown,' when the evidence shows that the grand jury knew the name of such person or could have ascertained it by reasonable diligence. See Cunningham v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 906.
We agree.
Detective Grubbs of the Houston Police Department, who did the follow-up investigation of the stolen property (112 cases of liquor), testified that had he been called by the grand jury as a witness he would have told its members that the appellant received the liquor from Wade Taylor.
Hughes, the victim of the theft, testified that
Bill Roland, an inspector for the Alcoholic Beverage Commission, testified that appellant indicated he purchased the liquor from Wade Taylor.
Nina Woodall, who was working at appellant's liquor store the day the liquor was received, testified that Wade Taylor made the delivery.
Appellant also testified that he told the investigating officers that 'here is the inventory I got from Wade Taylor.'
There is no indication that the grand jury called any of these people as witnesses during the course of its investigation. The grand jury did have before it the statement of Wade Taylor, who was indicted for the theft of the liquor during the same term. D. W. Johnston, a member of the grand jury, testified on cross-examination that he did not 'recall reading the statement,' and doubted if he had read it.
If it appears that the knowledge was available to the grand jury from which the name could be determined, and the evidence is insufficient to show that the grand jury exercised reasonable diligence in its effort to ascertain the name, the conviction must be reversed. Payne v ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crocker v. State
...that the grand jury could have ascertained the quantity by reasonable diligence, then there would be such a variance. Jordan v. State, 520 S.W.2d 388 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Payne v. State, 487 S.W.2d 71 There is no evidence in the record of the exact quantity of radioactive material to which Ki......
-
Showery v. State
...between pleading and proof. We note that Appellant has not presented a ground of error alleging fatal variance. See: Jordan v. State, 520 S.W.2d 388 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). Sanchez testified that she first thought that the mother in this case was one Mirriam Adams, but she later encountered th......
-
Huffman v. State
... ... Jordan v. State, ... Page 662 ... 520 S.W.2d 388 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). If the evidence at trial does not show what type of instrument was used, then a ... ...
-
Ex parte Lemke
...has been made to obtain the original and there is no suspicion that the copy might differ from the original" ); Jordan v. State, 520 S.W.2d 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975)(viewing "reasonable diligence" by grand jury as some inquiry of the relevant witnesses on the issue). In the instant case, t......