Mayo v. State
Citation | 238 S.W.2d 777,156 Tex.Crim. 26 |
Decision Date | 25 April 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 25249,25249 |
Parties | MAYO v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
D. F. Sanders, J. A. Veillon, Beaumont, Walter C. Linden, Jr., Orange, Horace H. Shelton, Austin, for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
DAVIDSON, Commissioner.
This is a conviction for unlawfully practicing dentistry under an information charging two prior convictions for the same offense, under Art. 62, P.C., with punishment assessed at a fine of $800 and four months in jail.
The question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, particularly as to whether the evidence identifies the appellant as the guilty party.
Nelson, an employee of the Texas State Dental Board, went to the office of the Beaumont Dental Laboratory for the express purpose of securing evidence upon which to base a prosecution for a violation of the dental act.
Upon arriving at the dental laboratory he advised a lady attendant or receptionist that he needed a partial plate. He was not waited upon that day. About a week later he contacted the office and was told to come back at a later date. About two weeks thereafter he returned and at that time a 'Mr. Mayo,' whom it appears he had been attempting to contact all the time, took an impression of his mouth for partial upper and lower plates. Thereafter, the plates were made, fitted, and paid for at the agreed price. The payments, in two installments, were made to a Mrs. Mayo, who issued the receipts therefor.
It will be noted that nowhere in his testimony did the witness Nelson identify the appellant as the Mr. Mayo who took the impression for the dental plates. The state in its brief admits that the statement of facts does not show that the prosecuting witness identified the appellant as being the guilty party.
If we understand the position of the state as to this matter, it is that, inasmuch as the record fails to affirmatively reflect that the identity of appellant was made an issue upon the trial of the case, the appellant cannot, upon this appeal, for the first time raise that question.
With this contention we do not agree. The state was under the burden of showing that this appellant was the man who committed the offense charged. Unless and until the state satisfied that burden, the guilt of this appellant has not been shown.
The state's case, here, depends solely and alone upon the testimony of the witness Nelson, who, by his own...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. State
...The Court of Appeals correctly held that the State has the burden of proving appellant committed the offense charged. Mayo v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 26, 238 S.W.2d 777 (1951). See also McCullen v. State, 372 S.W.2d 693 (Tex.Cr.App.1963). In reversing upon the identification issue, the Court o......
-
Mughni v. State
...the defendant committed the crime that was charged." Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d 875, 882 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Mayo v. State, 238 S.W.2d 777, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 1951) (explaining that State has burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that accused was person who committed offense c......
-
Ortega v. State
...verdict. Id. The State has the burden of proving the appellant is the person who committed the offense charged. See Mayo v. State, 238 S.W.2d 777 (Tex. Crim. App. 1951); see also Kromah v. State, 283 S.W.3d 47, 50 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. ref'd). The test for the sufficien......
-
Phillips v. State, 28637
...The state had the burden of showing that the appellant was the person, or one of the persons, who committed the offense; Mayo v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 26, 238 S.W.2d 777; and we have concluded that it failed to discharge this Mrs. Day did not testify that the appellant was one of the men who......