McCutcheon v. State, 25866
| Decision Date | 28 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 25866,25866 |
| Citation | 252 S.W.2d 175,158 Tex.Crim. 419 |
| Parties | McCUTCHEON et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
McCullough & Shown, Houston, J. S. Holleman, Livingston, for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin for the State.
The offense is burglary; the punishment, ten years for each defendant.
The State first proved that the city of Lufkin had adopted, as authorized by Article 214, C.C.P., an ordinance authorizing arrests without warrants of persons found in suspicious places and under circumstances which reasonably show that such persons have been guilty of some felony or breach of the peace, or threaten, or are about to commit some offense against the State law or a city ordinance.
Officer Rouse testified that, while on duty in the city of Lufkin on December 12, 1948, as he and his partner Middleton rounded a corner in the immediate vicinity of the Esquire cleaning establishment, he saw the two appellants step up onto the sidewalk, and one of them (who he later learned to be Frederick) threw something over a hedge; that the police car was brought to a halt, and they inquired of the appellants as to their identity, their business in that vicinity, and what they had thrown behind the bush. Officer Rouse stated that the appellants denied having thrown anything, but that a search revealed two shirts behind the hedge; that he arrested the appellants; drove a short distance to a parked automobile, where they had previously interrogated two women; arrested them; and carried the four, plus the automobile, to the police station. Officer Rouse testified further that the automobile was searched; and, among other things, he found a sledge hammer, punches, long files and an out-of-state license plate; and that Mr. Rudd, the manager of the Esquire Cleaners, came to the police station and was shown the shirts which had been recovered from behind the hedge.
Officer Rouse testified further that, later that night, the officers had asked the appellant McCutcheon about the location of the iron bar which had been used to enter the building; that McCutcheon returned with them to the vicinity of the Esquire Cleaners, walked over to a vacant lot, picked up a round steel bar with flat ends and handed it to the officers.
Mr. Rudd testified that, when he left his cleaning establishment in the afternoon of December 12, all doors and windows were closed; that he identified the sport shirts shown him at the police station by means of laundry marks and tickets as having come from his place of business. He further testified that when he arrived at the cleaning plant on the night in question he found the officers already there, the back door open, and a window broken as the result of having been 'prized'.
Officer Gandy testified that he went to the burglarized establishment and found a window had been 'prized open' by a flat piece of metal; and, outside under the window, he saw shoe tracks.
The appellant Frederick, testifying in his own behalf, admitted that he had twice before been convicted of violations of the narcotic law and recounted how he and McCutcheon had gone from Houston with two women, first to Port Arthur, and thence to Lufkin, where the four of them had slept all day in a tourist court. Frederick testified that, as they prepared to leave Lufkin on the night in question, a stranger had asked for a ride with them to Houston; that they became separated from the stranger; and when he and McCutcheon went to look for him in the vicinity of the cleaning establishment they saw another strange man, who broke and ran when they called to him. He testified further that, at the spot where they had first seen the second strange man, they found some shirts and a fur coat lying on the ground; that he picked up the fur coat and started back to their car when they noticed a police car approaching; whereupon, he threw the coat down. Frederick stated that, when apprehended by the officers, he had admitted to them having the coat in his possession and throwing it away.
Frederick denied knowing anything about the iron bar, but claimed that he was beaten by the officers after his arrest. Frederick volunteered that he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dyar v. State
...stand on them, officers then took the men to the barbecue stand and found that it had been burglarized); McCutcheon v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 419, 420-21, 252 S.W.2d 175, 175-76 (1952) (warrantless arrests under "suspicious places" ordinance upheld when officers saw defendants near laundry th......
-
Alejandro v. State
...during his argument to the jury. Objections to jury argument must be preserved by a formal bill of exception. See McCutcheon v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 252 S.W.2d 175; Israel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 258 S.W.2d 82; Hernandez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 262 S.W.2d 200; Phillips v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 2......
-
Studer v. State, 26722
...argument to the jury. These complaints are not found in the record, therefore we are not authorized to consider them. McCutcheon v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 252 S.W.2d 175. Appellant contends that Section 3 of Art. 535d, V.A.P.C., is invalid upon the ground that the portion thereof relating to t......
-
French v. State, 27637
...144 Tex.Cr.R. 62, 160 S.W.2d 944, authorizing the arrest, detention and search of persons of suspicious demeanor. In McCutcheon v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 252 S.W.2d 175, writ of certiorari denied, 345 U.S. 929, 73 S.Ct. 789, 97 L.Ed. 1359, we held the search of an automobile was authorized in ......