Smith v. State
Decision Date | 09 January 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 25574,25574 |
Citation | 157 Tex.Crim. 21,246 S.W.2d 187 |
Parties | SMITH v. STATE |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Thos. Bartlett, Jr., Marlin, for appellant.
Stuart B. Lumpkins, County Atty., Waxahachie, George P. Backburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is misdemeanor theft; the punishment, six months in the county jail.
One Hobbs, the injured party, testified that appellant on the day in question came to his garage to have some automobile repair work done; that during the course thereof he and appellant made a trip to town in Hobbs' pickup for some parts. Hobbs testified further that when he went into the garage in town for the parts appellant remained in the pickup; that after the work had been done and appellant had left, he discovered that his wrist watch was missing from its accustomed place in the glove compartment.
Appellant's confession was introduced in evidence, but the stolen property was never recovered.
Bill of exception No. 1 complains of a portion of the argument of the prosecutor, contending that the same constituted a comment on his failure to testify.
An examination of the bill reveals the fact that appellant did not object to the argument in question at the time it was made but waited until the jury had retired to deliberate and then moved the court to declare a mistrial. In Ross v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 364, 277 S.W. 667, 668, this Court, speaking through Judge Hawkins, said: See also Lomax v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 231, 144 S.W.2d 555; Mickle v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 53, 191 S.W.2d 41; 4 Tex.Juris., Sec. 41, pp. 63-64.
Further, in the absence of a showing in the bill that the confession could not be attacked by testimony other than that of appellant, the remarks of the district attorney to the effect that there was no evidence attacking the statement did not constitute an allusion to appellant's failure to testify.
Bill of exception No. 2 complains of that portion of the court's charge in which he submitted felony theft, contending that the evidence did not support the giving of such a charge.
The fact that the jury found appellant guilty of misdemeanor theft passes this question out of the case. Crowley v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 269, 174 S.W.2d 321.
Bill of exception No. 3 complains of the trial court's failure to charge on theft under $5.00. We do not feel that the facts warranted the giving of such a charge. The injured party testified that the watch kept very good time. The witness on value testified that if the watch in question was in good condition, it would be worth more than five dollars. There was therefore no evidence establishing its value at less than five dollars.
Bill of exception No. 4 complains of the failure of the court to charge on the necessity of corroborating appellant's confession.
In 24 Texas Jurisprudence, Section 108, page 597, we find the following:
In Johnson v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 103, 36 S.W.2d 748, 749, we said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Franklin v. State
...All right. That is denied." The objection was not timely. See Van Bibber v. State, 371 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Cr.App.1963); Smith v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 21, 246 S.W.2d 187 (1952). The objection was general, and did not specify the basis for appellant's complaint. See Patterson v. State, 509 S.W.2......
-
Gribble v. State
...Mayfield v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 532, 244 S.W. 819 (1922), Johnson v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 103, 36 S.W.2d 748 (1931), Smith v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 21, 246 S.W.2d 187 (1952), Engledow v. State, 407 S.W.2d 789 (Tex.Cr.App.1966), Honea v. State, 585 S.W.2d 681, 687 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), and Baldr......
-
Rodriguez v. State, No. 13-02-00322-CR (TX 11/10/2004)
...State, 506 S.W.2d 221, 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Engledow v. State, 407 S.W.2d 789, 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 1966); Smith v. State, 246 S.W.2d 187, 188 (Tex. Crim. App. 1952). The State produced evidence that the victim's sexually-assaulted body was found near the Degussa Dock; the body was c......
-
McDonald v. State, 36861
...upon his confession. Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 361 S.W.2d 390; Morgan v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 412, 341 S.W.2d 438; Smith v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 21, 246 S.W.2d 187. The prior convictions were proved as alleged and the appellant admitted that such convictions were final convictions and th......