Mullins v. State

Decision Date30 October 1895
PartiesMULLINS v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from district court, Gonzales county; T. H. Spooner, Judge.

Wes Mullins was convicted of burglary with intent to steal, and appeals. Affirmed.

C. K. Walter, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

This conviction was for burglary with intent to steal. Attached to his motion for a new trial is appellant's affidavit, in which he states that, by some misunderstanding, counsel supposed to have been employed to defend him did not appear in his behalf, and it would seem that this failure was attributable to the fact that he did not pay or secure their fee. Nothing seems to have been said in regard to this matter until after his conviction. How this could possibly constitute a ground for a new trial is not apparent.

It is insisted that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, because it fails to show with sufficient certainty his intent to steal when he entered the house. The alleged owner, Mrs. Hamburger, testified in this connection: "I live in the town of Waelder, and am engaged in the mercantile business, selling dry goods and groceries. I live in a room back of and adjoining my storehouse. The door leading from my room into my storehouse was locked. The key was in the door. I heard a noise in my room at the store door, which awoke me. I called Miss Tenie Pelte, who was asleep in my room, to get up, and make a light; that somebody was in the house. She (Miss Tenie Pelte) got up, and struck a light. Then I saw defendant lying down on the floor in my room, pretending to be asleep, He jumped up, ran towards the window, and then went out at the door, which Miss Pelte had opened when she got up. He entered through the window, by breaking some slats fastened over it, and opening the shutters. The room I sleep in, and my store, is all the same house; only a partition between." This was at night. Miss Pelte testified: "I was asleep in Mrs. Hamburger's room the night it was broken into. She awoke me, and requested me to get up and make a light, stating that some one was in the room. I immediately got up and made a light; lighted a lamp. I found defendant lying down on the floor as if he were asleep. He jumped up, and made a break for the window. I made for the window also. He then turned, and ran out of the door. It was half past two o'clock when we discovered defendant in the house. I opened the door when I got up." It is beyond...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • United States v. Melton
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 26 September 1973
    ...So. 833 (1908); People v. Noon, 1 Cal.App. 44, 81 P. 746 (1905); State v. Worthen, 111 Iowa 267, 82 N.W. 910 (1900); Mullins v. State, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 149, 32 S.W. 691 (1895); Alexander v. State, 31 Tex.Cr.R. 359, 20 S.W. 756 (1892); Steadman v. State, 81 Ga. 736, 8 S.E. 420 (1888); State v. M......
  • State v. Woodruff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 7 May 1929
    ...97 N. C. 393, 1 S. E. 925;Cady v. U. S., 54 App. D. C. 10, 293 F. 829;Smith v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 427, 102 S. W. 406;Mullens v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 149, 32 S. W. 691;Alexander v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 359, 20 S. W. 756; 4 R. C. L. 441. Many other authorities upon this proposition could......
  • Dimery v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 9 May 1951
    ...that it is not supported by the facts. Branch's P.C., Sec. 2344; Alexander v. State, 31 Tex.Cr.R. 359, 20 S.W. 756; Mullins v. State, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 149, 32 S.W. 691; Smith v. State, 51 Tex.Cr.R. 427, 102 S.W. 406; Black v. State, 73 Tex.Cr.R. 475, 165 S.W. 571; Love v. State, 82 Tex.Cr.R. 41......
  • Aguilar v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 9 January 1985
    ...inference. See, Hardesty v. State, 656 S.W.2d 73 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). For the inauspicious genesis of the rule, see Mullins v. State, 35 Tex.Crim. 149, 32 S.W. 691 (1895) and Alexander v. State, 31 Tex.Crim. 359, 20 S.W. 756 (1892).1 All emphasis is supplied throughout by the writer of this o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT