Voelkel v. State, 46794

• Citation: 501 S.W.2d 313
• Decision Date: 21 November 1973
• Docket Number: No. 46794,46794
• Parties: Curtis R. VOELKEL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Page 313

501 S.W.2d 313

Curtis R. VOELKEL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 46794.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 21, 1973.

George J. Parnham, Houston, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., and Sam Robertson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Buddy Stevens, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction for the offense of embezzlement. Punishment was assessed by a jury at four years.

The record reflects that appellant was employed for some twenty-four years as an accountant at the Rein Company in Houston. In addition to his employment as an accountant, he was also the treasurer of the Rein Company Employees' Credit Union for approximately seven years.

Joseph Kamerling, a certified public accountant who had audited the credit union's books, testified that approximately $190,592.65 was embezzled from the credit union between 1962 and 1970. Proof of the embezzlements was introduced into evidence by the state through the use of approximately 352 exhibits.

The evidence shows that on January 23, 1970, appellant wrote a check on the Rein Employees Credit Union bank account in the sum of $650.00. This check was made payable to the Heights State Bank and appellant deposited it in his personal account in said bank. Appellant's bank records were introduced into evidence. These records show the expenditure of funds from his personal bank account to his own use and benefit. The bank account of the credit union reflects that a $650.00 debit entry was made to 'loans' but that the $650.00 did not show up on the share and loan balance of any person.

Appellant testified that the transaction in question, along with the other transactions the state introduced, were authorized loans and that he had completed a loan application for each of the withdrawals. He also testified that he didn't know where the share and loan ledger was and that he had no intent to embezzle the money.

Appellant contends that the indictment in this cause is fatally defective because it fails to describe with sufficient particularity the offense he allegedly committed. We disagree and accordingly overrule this contention for the reasons set forth herein.

The indictment alleged in part:

'. . . That Curtis R. Voelkel on or about the 23rd day of January, A.D. 1970, in said County and State, was then and there the agent and employee of M. H. Russell and the said Curtis R. Voelkel Did then and there unlawfully and fraudulently embezzle, misapply and convert to his own use, without the consent of the said M. H. Russell certain property, the same then and there being the corporeal personal property of and belonging to the said M. H. Russell To wit, money of the value of over Fifty Dollars, and which said property had theretofore come into the possession of and was then and there under the care of the said Curtis R. Voelkel by virtue of his said employment as agent and employee as aforesaid.' (Emphasis supplied.)

As the reader can observe, the indictment bears a striking similarity with the one set out in Willson's Criminal Forms Ann., 7th Ed., Section 2141, at pp. 487--488; see also 5 Branch's Ann.P.C.2d, Section 2793, at p. 304.

Article 21.11, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., provides in part:

'An indictment shall be deemed sufficient which charges the commission of the offense in ordinary and concise language in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is meant, and with that degree of certainty that will give the defendant notice of the particular offense with which he is charged, and enable the court, on conviction, to pronounce the proper...