Stephens v. State
| Decision Date | 18 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 36686,36686 |
| Citation | 377 S.W.2d 189 |
| Parties | Wendell Odell STEPHENS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John Patrick McDowell, Dallas (On Appeal Only), for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., C. M. Turlington, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is felony theft; the punishment, enhanced by a prior conviction for burglary with intent to commit theft, 10 years.
The prior conviction was proved as alleged.
The indictment alleged the theft of a suit of men's clothing of the value of over fifty dollars from Weldon Barnett on or about the 8th day of November, 1962.
Weldon Barnett testified that he was a supervisor for Sanger-Harris, a department store located in Preston Center in Dallas, and was assigned to the men's area; that as supervisor he had the care, control and custody of all the men's suits in that department. He identified a new man's suit which had been picked up off the street as having been taken from his department without his consent, and testified in part:
'A. $55.00.
'A. $55.00.
* * *
* * *
Wilma Gallant, store investigator for Sanger-Harris, testified that she saw Lila Jo Bentley and the appellant in the suit department
'
* * *
She further testified that outside the store D. L. Hutchinson, Protection Manager for Sanger-Harris, and Mrs. Gallant came up behind the couple. As they stepped off the curb Mr. Hutchinson took ahold of the woman's arm and the suit which had been taken from the store fell out of her dress onto the sidewalk. Both Lila Jo Bentley and the appellant fled, but were soon apprehended and returned to the store.
Mr. Hutchinson testified that when he stopped Lila Jo, the appellant drew back to hit him and he turned her loose and started at him and the appellant broke and ran.
On cross-examination Mr. Hutchinson was asked and answered:
Four propositions are advanced upon which reversal is sought. The first three relate to the sufficiency of the evidence: (1) To show that the suit was of the value of $50 or more; (2) To show an intent to deprive the owner of the suit of clothes of its value; and (3) To show that the appellant acted as a principal with Lila Jo Bentley in the taking of the suit.
The evidence above set out is deemed sufficient in each of the particulars mentioned and sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict.
The fourth and last ground for reversal is the contention that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Breen v. Beto
...Tex.Cr.App., 367 S.W.2d 697; Pitcock v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 367 S.W.2d 864; Carso v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 297; Stephens v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 377 S.W.2d 189; Oler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 378 S.W.2d 857; McDonald v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 385 S.W.2d 253, and Ex parte Reyes, Tex.Cr.App......
-
United States v. Follette, 65 Civ. 3574.
...Matula v. State, 390 S.W.2d 263 (Texas Ct.Crim.App.1965); Ex parte Gomez, 389 S.W.2d 308 (Texas Ct.Crim.App.1965); Stephens v. State, 377 S.W.2d 189 (Texas Ct.Crim.App. 1964), cert. denied 380 U.S. 980, 85 S.Ct. 1344, 14 L.Ed.2d 274 (April 26, The Breen decision, supra, (341 F.2d 96) has be......
-
Taylor v. State, 38906
...do not agree. Redding v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 535, 265 S.W.2d 811, cert. denied, 348 U.S. 838, 75 S.Ct. 38, 99 L.Ed. 661; Stephens v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 377 S.W.2d 189, cert. denied, 380 U.S. 980, 85 S.Ct. 1344, 14 L.Ed.2d 274; Crocker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 385 S.W.2d 392, and cases cited......
-
Crocker v. State
...Tex.Cr.App., 367 S.W.2d 697; Pitcock v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 367 S.W.2d 864; Carso v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 297; Stephens v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 377 S.W.2d 189; Oler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 378 S.W.2d 857; McDonald v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 385 S.W.2d 253, and Ex Parte Reyes, Tex.Cr.App......