Smith v. State, 43771.
Citation | 468 S.W.2d 824 |
Decision Date | 14 July 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 43771.,43771. |
Parties | Robert Nathaniel SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Victor R. Blaine, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Thomas Henderson, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is theft of property of more than the value of $5.00 and less than $50.00; the punishment, seven (7) days in jail and a fine of $50.00.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to show that the offense was committed at a time within the Statute of Limitations, Art. 12.05, Vernon's Ann. C.C.P. The owner testified that the particular upholstery material was cut and prepared for delivery on the day it was reported missing from his place of business, June 27, 1969, and that it was recovered on that same day from the appellant's automobile. The information was filed on July 2, 1969. His first ground of error is overruled.
Appellant next complains that the evidence is insufficient because all of the items related in the information were not recovered. It is undisputed that certain specialized upholstery material was stolen, was recovered from appellant's possession and that it had a value of over $5.00 and under $50.00.
There is also a complaint that the information charged that the property was stolen from Carl Wallman, but that the prosecuting witness was named by the court reporter as Carl Waldman. The witness did not spell his name; however, the two names are idem sonans, see Rodriguez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 363 S.W.2d 472; Burks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 35 S.W. 173, and Hale v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 482, 300 S.W.2d 75.
Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
OPINIONON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING
On rehearing appellant contends we erroneously construed his ground of error relating to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, as the property described in the information was never shown to have been stolen nor was it found in the possession of appellant.
Carl Waldman, the President of Furniture Designs Company, testified that he discovered some upholstering material missing from his plant, "coverings primarily and some thread and hardware." On cross-examination by appellant's counsel, he testified:
Julius T. Cockrell, the arresting officer, testified:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flanagan v. State
...but the prosecuting witness was named by the court reporter as "Carl Waldman," the names were held to be idem sonans. Smith v. State, 468 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). In the instant case, we hold that the name of "Cecil Chatman" in the indictment and the name "Cecil Chapman" given to the p......
-
Archie v. State
...find the names to be idem sonans. Ross v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 496 S.W.2d 78; Raseley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 470 S.W.2d 899; Smith v State, Tex.Cr.App., 468 S.W.2d 824; Mounce v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d No error is presented. The judgment is affirmed. Opinion approved by the Court. ...
-
Obeidat v. State, 2-89-145-CR
...no variance. See the following cases and the names therein: Jenke, 487 S.W.2d at 348 ("MAHAFFREY" and "MAHAFFEY"); Smith v. State, 468 S.W.2d 824, 825 (Tex.Crim.App.1971) ("WALLMAN" and "WALDMAN"); Hale v. State, 164 Tex.Crim. 482, 300 S.W.2d 75, 78 (1957) ("CLIMBER" and "CLIMER"); Raven v.......
-
Batro v. State
...if not impossible, to distinguish between them when pronounced. They were of like sound and are therefore idem sonans. Smith v. State, 468 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). In Vaughn v. State, 608 S.W.2d 237 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), the Court of Criminal Appeals decided that "Sheila" and "Shelia" are......