Salinas v. State, 22628.
| Decision Date | 17 November 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 22628.,22628. |
| Parties | SALINAS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Bexar County; W. W. McCrory, Judge.
Manuel G. Salinas was convicted of theft from the person, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Chas. T. Haltom and Albert A. Pena, both of San Antonio, for appellant.
Spurgeon E. Bell, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for the offense of theft from the person. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of seven years.
The indictment alleges that the appellant and one Raul R. Gonzales did "unlawfully, fraudulently and privately take from the possession and person of Frederick W. Eberlein, a wrist watch of the value of $25.00," to which charge the appellant entered a plea of guilty.
Eberlein, the alleged injured party, testified that on February 20, 1943, he was in the city of San Antonio, to which place he had come from Scheel, Texas, where he was stationed with the Armed Forces of the United States; that he, in company with another soldier, visited various places in San Antonio, where they drank wine and beer; that about eleven o'clock that night they sat down to rest on a cement porch which extended to the sidewalk and both fell asleep; that they were awakened by police officers about one o'clock A.M., at which time Eberlein noticed that his wrist watch was missing and that his companion had lost $28 in money.
Alex Sandoval, a city detective, in company with another officer, while driving a patrol car on the streets of San Antonio on the night in question, stopped at a stop sign and noticed two men going through the pockets of two soldiers who were asleep on a porch which leads out to the sidewalk. The officers arrested appellant and his companion as they tried to escape. Upon searching the appellant the officers found $19 upon his person. The watch which belonged to Eberlein was found on the ground near the place where the appellant had run. The witness testified that he had known the appellant for some five or six years.
Appellant did not testify or offer any testimony on the trial, but, as above stated, entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged in the indictment.
The only bill of exception found in the record complains of the action of the prosecuting attorney in propounding to the State's witness, Alex C. Sandoval, the following questions:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gardner v. State
...holding the harm was not cured the panel relied upon Ulmer v. State, 106 Tex.Cr.R. 349, 292 S.W. 245 (1927), and Salinas v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 358, 175 S.W.2d 253 (1943). In Ulmer the defendant was on trial for the rape of his daughter. At trial another of the defendant's daughters was al......
-
Hughes v. State
... ... Gardner v. State, 730 S.W.2d 675, 696 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) ... Appellant relies on Salinas v. State, where similar evidence came in at the punishment stage of a theft trial, and despite an instruction to disregard, the court reversed. 175 ... ...
-
Wilson v. State
...the Williams court determined that the trial court's instruction was insufficient to cure the error. Id. (citing Salinas v. State, 175 S.W.2d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 1943) (where improper testimony about defendant's time in penitentiary was admitted and maximum sentence was imposed following d......
-
Johnson v. State
...v. State, 643 S.W.2d 136, 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982); Priest v. State, 282 S.W.2d 390, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955); Salinas v. State, 175 S.W.2d 253, 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 1943); Ulmer v. State, 292 S.W. 245, 245-46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1927). Although Johnson has not cited authority showing that......