Senters v. State
| Decision Date | 30 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 28340,28340 |
| Citation | 291 S.W.2d 739,163 Tex.Crim. 423 |
| Parties | Manzel SENTERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Samuel E. Daugherty, Martin & Bailey, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., George P. Blackburn, Harvey Lindsay and A. D. Bowie, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, for the State.
This is a conviction for felony theft of a ring and a ring set; the punishment assessed, two years.
The evidence shows beyond question that appellant took the rings from the showcase in a pawn shop where they were exposed for sale, but the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the jury's finding that the property so taken was of the value of $50 or more is challenged.
Appellant contends that the conviction should have been for misdemeanor theft, a conviction for which was authorized in the court's charge in the event the jury entertained a reasonable doubt that the reasonable market value of the property was less than $50.
There are no objections to the charge and the following evidence on the question of value was admitted without objection.
Ornish, the pawn broker, described the ring first mentioned as a single ring with a small diamond, and the ring set as a small wedding ring or band and an engagement ring with small diamonds. He testified that he was familiar with the market value of diamonds and of rings of the type taken from him; that the fair market value of the single ring was $29 and he sold it for that amount after it was recovered.
Asked as to the fair market value of the ring set in Dallas on the day the rings were stolen, Ornish testified: 'Well, according to my judgment, the set I would sell it for $22.50. * * *
Except as may be shown by the foregoing there was no direct testimony as to the reasonable market value of the property, and no witness other than Ornish was called who claimed to be familiar with the market value of such property.
On cross-examination Ornish testified that the ring set contained 'about a dollar and a half's worth of gold'; that he would sell the set for $22.50 and make a profit; that it could be possible that the set might be obtained for ten or fifteen dollars--'Just somebody anxious to sell.'
Ornish testified further that the rings were secondhand; that on such merchandise pawn shops do not operate according to fair market value; 'they make a small loan and after they forfeit and put it up for sale, if they can get more they get more, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hutchings v. State
...a verdict of not guilty because of the failure of the state to prove the market value of the five guns stolen. In Senters v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 423, 291 S.W.2d 739, this Court said the expressions 'market value,' 'fair market value' and 'cash market value' and 'fair cash market value' are......
-
Wise v. State
...v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 500, 236 S.W. 89 (1921); Givens v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 277, 158 S.W.2d 535 (1943), and Senters v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 423, 291 S.W.2d 739 (1956). Of course, one way to establish extent of an injury to personalty in a lawsuit is by offering evidence tending to prove ......
-
Keeton v. State
...it has long been stated as the amount the property would sell for in cash, giving a reasonable time for selling it. Senters v. State, 163 Tex.Crim. 423, 291 S.W.2d 739 (1956). This definition supports the idea that a sale price may be, but is not necessarily determinative of the fair market......
-
MaGee v. State
...of value for purposes of the theft statute only where the stolen items have no market or cash value. See generally Senters v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 423, 291 S.W.2d 739 (1956); Clark v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 537, 197 S.W.2d 111 (1946); McKnight v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 373, 115 S.W.2d 636 (1938......