Sowles v. State

• Decision Date: 30 October 1907
• Citation: 105 S.W. 178
• Parties: SOWLES v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

105 S.W. 178

SOWLES v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

October 30, 1907.

Appeal from Henderson County Court; J. R. Blades, Judge.

John Sowles, Jr., was convicted of the theft of $10, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Miller & Royall, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of theft of $10. The evidence is that it was a $10 United States currency bill. While the evidence is not emphatic that it was a United States bill, yet that was the impression of the witness and is made reasonably to appear.

Contention was made that appellant was entitled to a charge instructing the jury to acquit because the value of the bill was not proved. If this could arise, we are of opinion that it is reasonably proved as an independent fact; but, it being United States currency, the mere fact that it was a $10 bill proves its value, and such has been the rule in this state since the case of Menear v. State, 30 Tex. App. 475, 17 S. W. 1082.

It is further urged for reversal that the court failed to instruct the jury that a conviction could not be had simply upon a confession of guilt. We do not believe the rule sought to be invoked applies to the facts of this case. The state's case, substantially, is that on the morning of and prior to the alleged theft a $10 bill had been taken in at the meat market and placed in a cash drawer in a separate apartment for receiving currency money; that thereafter Thompson, the alleged owner of the market and money, heard the bell of the cash drawer ring and turned around and saw appellant at or near the cash drawer, and asked him what he was doing at the cash drawer. Appellant replied, "Not me," and moved away. Appellant was then sent out about town to deliver some meat; his employment being to deliver meat for the market around town, and during his absence Thompson discovered that the $10 bill previously placed in the drawer had disappeared. Upon appellant's return he was charged with the theft of the money and in a qualified sense admitted taking the money by agreeing to refund, but stated that the owner, Thompson, had not treated him right. This is the state's case, in substance, as we understand the evidence. Under this state of case the state did not rely upon confession alone. The presence of appellant at the cash drawer, and what occurred there at the time Thompson discovered him and heard the noise, the conversation that occurred, etc., and the fact that the bill was gone, are circumstances independent of the confession, if appellant's statement be regarded as a confession. The rule now, as laid down by this court in the case of Kugadt v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 681, 44 S. W. 989, is that a confession may be used in making out the corpus delicti. The rule as laid down in the case of Attaway v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 403, 34 S. W. 112, is that, where the corpus delicti has been shown a confession may be used to connect the defendant with the offense or with the corpus delicti. The Attaway Case, however, was qualified in the case of Kugadt and subsequent cases.

The serious questions in the case arise in regard to the ruling of the court in rejecting certain testimony, all of which are set out in several bills of exception. The state's case has been sufficiently stated, as it may have a bearing upon the rejection of the offered testimony. Kirk was placed upon the stand as a witness for appellant, and was asked if he was present on the Sunday morning that defendant is charged with the offense for which he is being tried, and, if so, state what was said and done by appellant and the state's witnesses Thompson and Baugh. After stating the object and purpose of offering this testimony, the facts expected to be shown are as follows: "On that Sunday Bob Love and I were going to the post office. Johnnie (appellan...