Torres v. State
| Citation | 55 S.W. 828 |
| Parties | TORRES v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1900 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from district court, Wilson county; M. Kennon, Judge.
Martin Torres was convicted of burglary, and appeals. Affirmed.
Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of burglary, and given five years in the penitentiary.
Exception was reserved to the court's charge because it stated "that the witness Melchor Ximenes is what is known in law as an accomplice, and you are instructed that a conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated," etc. The objection is that the court, in effect, told the jury that defendant acted with the accomplice, Ximenes, in the commission of the crime. We do not think there is any merit in this. The testimony is clear and unequivocal that Ximenes was an accomplice. It does not assume that he was an accomplice with the defendant, but simply states he was what is known in law as an accomplice.
The court gave a charge in regard to possession of recently stolen property. The objection reserved to this is that it did not charge the law applicable to the possession of recently stolen property. We think it did. The property taken from the burglarized house was found in appellant's residence, in a box in the room occupied by him, his wife, and stepson, the accomplice, Ximenes. The testimony leaves some doubt as to whether defendant was in the exclusive control and possession of this property, and the latter part of the court's charge instructs the jury that this possession could not be taken as a fact or circumstance against appellant, unless he exercise a distinct and conscious ownership of the property. Taking this charge as a whole, we think it was sufficient, and the court was correct in giving the latter part, in order that the jury might not use a doubtful fact against him in regard to the possession. The evidence is sufficient, and the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steen v. State, 18561.
...question, a charge of the court instructing the jury that he is an accomplice is not on the weight of the evidence. See Torres v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 55 S.W. 828; Winfield v. State, 44 Tex.Cr.R. 475, 72 S.W. Appellant next complains of the court's charge submitting his defense of alibi on t......
-
Lindsey v. State
...charge implies that an offense has been committed in which the accused is a party. This criticism has been held untenable. Torres v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 55 S. W. 828. The propriety of giving a like charge has been often announced. See Wilkerson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 57 S. W. 964; Hatch......