Witt v. State
| Decision Date | 09 February 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 22729.,22729. |
| Citation | 177 S.W.2d 781 |
| Parties | WITT v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Gaines County; J. E. Garland, Special Judge.
W. Steve Witt was convicted of conspiracy to commit a felony theft, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Dabney & Dabney, of Eastland, for appellant.
Ernest S. Goens, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for the substantive crime of conspiracy to commit felony theft; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.
The count in the indictment upon which the conviction was predicated charged, in effect, that appellant, Dean Hambrick, and Felix Haler entered into a conspiracy, in Gaines County, to steal, from W. H. Castleberry, corn of the value of $854.50.
The State dismissed as to Haler and used him as a witness. The case was submitted to the jury upon the theory—and the jury was so instructed—that appellant's guilt depended upon facts showing a conspiracy between Hambrick and himself to commit the crime of theft as alleged.
The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction is challenged.
Appellant was in the business of buying and selling grain, including corn. Trucks were used in the operation of the business. Haler was employed as a truck driver. Hambrick was an employee and was the overseer of the trucks.
According to Haler's testimony, he was instructed, by both appellant and Hambrick, to go to Seagraves, in Gaines County, and buy a load of corn. No specific instructions were given from whom the corn was to be purchased. He was given some blank checks, signed by appellant, with which to purchase the corn. Both Hambrick and appellant told Haler the checks were "good." Haler went to Seagraves and contacted Castleberry, from whom he purchased a truckload of corn, at an agreed price of something over $460. It appears that another employee of appellant had, the day before, bought a load of corn from Castleberry, and Castleberry suggested that the price of the load, as well as the one Haler was purchasing, be included in one check. Haler agreed, and gave Castleberry one of the checks furnished him by appellant, and which Castleberry filled out for $854.50—the purchase price of the two truckloads of corn. Haler made no representations to Castleberry regarding the check. Before the transaction was closed, Haler told Castleberry "that I would have to give him a check for this corn which was given to me to buy it with, and he said that was all right, he says, `that is all right, we will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kunkle v. State
...soon as the criminal agreement is entered into. Dill v. State, 35 Tex.Cr. 240, 33 S.W. 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1895); Witt v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 177 S.W.2d 781 (Tex.Cr.App.1944). In order to agree to an object of a conspiracy, the conspirator must have knowledge of that objective, but such k......
-
Lindsay v. State
...15.02. At that point, the offense of conspiracy is complete. Smith v. State, 363 S.W.2d 277 (Tex.Cr.App.1963); Witt v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 177 S.W.2d 781 (Tex.Cr.App.1944). The holding of Carter v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 457, 116 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Cr.App.1937), is applicable. This indictm......
-
Farrington v. State
...the use or benefit of the taker or another this is enough to support a conviction for conspiracy to commit felony theft. Witt v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 177 S.W.2d 781, is cited by the appellant for the proposition that an agreement between two or more persons must be proved. It is not ci......
-
Murdoch v. State
...97, 338 S.W.2d 447, and their actions do not render them amenable to prosecution and conviction for conspiracy. Witt v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 177 S.W.2d 781. Finding the evidence insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment of conviction of each of the appellants is reversed and......