Santee v. State

• Decision Date: 28 October 1896
• Citation: 37 S.W. 436
• Parties: SANTEE v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

37 S.W. 436

SANTEE v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

October 28, 1896.

Appeal from district court, Grayson county; Don A. Bliss, Judge.

W. H. Santee was convicted of a crime, and appeals. Reversed.

Standifer & Eppstein, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of fraudulently receiving stolen goods, knowing them to be so acquired, and given two years in the penitentiary, and prosecutes this appeal.

1. Appellant complains that the court admitted parol evidence as to the contents of a certain book of accounts, and that the court remarked in that connection that the evidence showed that the book of accounts was in the possession of the appellant. Possibly the notice to produce in this case before the introduction of secondary evidence came too late. The bill, however, is in a confused state as to the contents of the said book which was admitted. The statement by the witness that the defendant, Santee, had a record, giving the man's name that he had purchased the clothing from, and that the record shows that his wife bought part of the clothing on Thursday evening, and he bought the balance of the installment on Friday, does not occur to us to be prejudicial to the defendant, but, standing alone, appears to be to his advantage. At any rate, the defendant went fully into the contents of this book of accounts, and in his own testimony stated what said book contained. Whether this testimony was adduced by the state or the defendant is immaterial, as no objection was made to it. The court's remarks in that connection were equally harmless.

2. There is nothing in appellant's bill of exceptions to the testimony of John Penn, showing that some time before defendant was arrested he had a conversation with him about keeping a record of the things he bought. We think the testimony was pertinent, as showing defendant kept such a record, and, in case he failed to produce the same, it would be a legitimate subject of comment by the prosecution.

3. Appellant also complains of the following charge of the court, to wit: "You are further instructed that evidence has been admitted before you tending to show that about the time defendant is charged to have received and concealed the property charged in the indictment he received property belonging to another person than R. K. Lane that was stolen. You can consider said testimony in determining what knowledge the defendant had with reference to the property described in the indictment at the time he received or concealed the same, if he did receive or conceal it, and for no other purpose," etc. This charge was promptly excepted to by defendant at the time it was given. The contention of the appellant in this regard is that the above is a charge upon the weight of the testimony. The evidence, summarized, tends to show that a number of pairs of pants were taken from the storehouse of R. K. Lane in Greenville; that, after he missed the same, he placed the matter in the hands of a detective, and in some ten days or two weeks the pants which he identified as his were found in the back room of a storehouse of the defendant in a certain trunk. On the part of the state there were...