Richardson v. State
| Decision Date | 17 June 1903 |
| Parties | RICHARDSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Falls County Court; W. E. Hunnicutt, Judge.
Ike Richardson was convicted of receiving and selling stolen property under the value of $50, and appeals. Reversed.
Wm. Shelton and Wiley C. Jones, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property under the value of $50, and his punishment assessed by the jury at "nine months in jail or county roads."
Appellant introduced in defense of this prosecution a plea of former acquittal, in proper form, predicated on the fact that prior to this conviction he had been prosecuted in the district court of Falls county under an indictment charging burglary with intent to commit theft, and that the jury acquitted him; that the receiving and concealing of the cotton seed, for which he is now being prosecuted, was the same property taken in the burglary—that is, the burglary indictment charged appellant with breaking and entering a certain car with intent to steal, and the offense for which he is now being prosecuted, for concealing the cotton seed taken, is one and the same transaction, and that defendant in this case was the defendant in the burglary case. Appellant introduced evidence fully supporting this plea. The transcript before us fails to disclose that the court made any disposition of the plea. In Rust v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 75, 19 S. W. 763, appellant presented a similar plea to the one now under consideration, and the transcript there did not contain an order or judgment of the court showing the disposition of the plea. It was there sought to perpetuate the ruling of the court by bill of exceptions. We held that the court, being a court of record, must perpetuate its proceedings by judgments. It follows, therefore, that there should have been a judgment disposing of appellant's plea. In the Rust Case we held that a bill of exceptions would not properly present this matter, and further said that: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warren v. State
...Alarcon v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 288, 242 S.W. 1056 (1922); Allen v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 416, 175 S.W. 700 (1915); Richardson v. State, 75 S.W. 505 (Tex.Cr.App.1903). The appellant asks us to go, using our State Constitution, beyond the position held by a majority of the United States Supreme......
-
Wool v. State
...writer is aware, reject statements of this character. These cases will be found collated in Mr. Branch's Ann. P. C. p. 1366. In Richardson v. State, 75 S. W. 505, it was held that it was error to admit proof of the declarations of the thief, made in the absence of the defendant, to the effe......
-
Forrester v. State
...Bros. was in the box expressed to Ft. Worth. Various objections were urged to this testimony. Under the authority of Richardson v. State (Civ. App.) 75 S. W. 505, and Cooper v. State, 29 Tex. App. 8, 13 S. W. 1011, 25 Am. St. Rep. 712, we are of opinion this testimony was inadmissible. Appe......
-
Ryan v. State
...62, 152 S. W. 1041; Hoyt v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 612, 228 S. W. 936; Wool v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 113, 201 S. W. 1002; Richardson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 75 S. W. 505. The statements made by Holland in the absence of appellant and two years or more after the alleged offense was committed......