Watters v. State

• Decision Date: 19 October 1904
• Citation: 82 S.W. 654
• Parties: WATTERS v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

82 S.W. 654

WATTERS v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

October 19, 1904.

Appeal from District Court, Travis County; George Calhoun, Judge.

Randolph Watters was convicted of cattle theft, and he appeals. Reversed.

Sandbo & Shelton, W. B. Corwin, and Walton & Walton, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROOKS, J.

Appellant was convicted of the theft of cattle, and his punishment fixed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary. The only question we deem necessary to review is the sufficiency of the evidence.

The statement of facts shows that prosecutor, Lynn Hunter, lost certain cattle branded "9" on the side. Some months after its loss he found one hide of a red steer, corresponding in color to his own, branded "9," buried in a hole about 140 yards from the home of appellant, on land belonging to appellant. Other hides, not identified, were found in a similar hole upon the same land. The place where the hide was buried was about 140 yards from the public road, and witnesses state that the dirt thrown into the hole where the hides were buried could be seen from the road. Defendant had been previously prosecuted for theft of cattle. Defendant's home was near a negro settlement, where various negroes lived. Defendant had several dogs that barked upon the approach of any one to his home. The hides were buried near a path leading from defendant's house. Defendant lived at the house with his family and several children, most of whom were girls. The sheriff, after arresting defendant and giving him the statutory warning, asked him if he knew where that hole was over in that cluster of bushes. Defendant hung his head a little while, did not answer for half a minute, and then said, "Yes." The sheriff asked him what the hole was for. Defendant hung his head a little while, and then said, "I will answer that when the proper time comes." When asked about the hole, defendant said, "What hole?" The sheriff said, "You know what hole I am talking about—in the clump of bushes." Defendant replied, "That has been there about two years." This was all the statement defendant made. Without reviewing defendant's testimony, this is substantially the state's evidence. In our opinion it does not meet the requirements of the law. It does not exclude beyond all reasonable doubt any hypothesis other than the guilt of defendant. It may be that defendant knew who buried the hides upon his land. It may be, as insisted by the Assistant ...