Worthington v. State
| Decision Date | 14 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 43971,43971 |
| Parties | Patrick WORTHINGTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Branch & Stilwell by Victor F. Branch, Houston, for appellant.
Robert J. Seerden, Dist. Atty., D. F. Martinek, Asst. Dist. Atty., Victoria, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for felony theft; trial was before the court and the punishment was assessed at five years.
The appellant in this case was a 59-year-old tree surgeon from Houston with no prior criminal record. He was the owner of a 1966 Cadillac, which is the subject matter of this prosecution. The automobile had been in a wreck and appellant had it repaired at a motor company. When repairs were completed, appellant came to the motor company. There was no argument over the amount due. Appellant testified he received permission to test drive the car. The shop foreman denied giving permission and testified the car was simply missing. Some five or six hours later, appellant was found driving the automobile some 200 miles from the repair shop.
He was convicted under provisions of Art. 1416 of the Vernon's Ann.Penal Code which allows a prosecution for theft of one's own property as follows, '* * * and (4) in all other cases where the person so deprived of possession is, at the time of taking, lawfully entitled to the possession thereof as against the true owner.' The State relies on this, in conjunction with Art. 5503, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., which reads as follows:
The appellant's first ground of error alleges that the indictment is defective for failure to allege that the property was taken with the intent to deprive the owner or person in lawful possession of the value thereof.
The indictment alleged as follows:
'IN THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: The Grand Jurors, duly selected, organized, sworn and impaneled as such for the County of Victoria, State of Texas, at the Fall--Winter, A.D. 1969, Term of the 24th Judicial District Court for said County, upon their oaths present in and to said Court that on or about the 3rd day of October, A.D. 1969, and before the presentment of this indictment, in the County and State aforesaid, PATRICK WORTHINGTON did, then and there unlawfully and fraudulently take a 1966 Cadillac automobile of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Cannon
...Green v. State, 437 S.W.2d 558 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). See also Williams v. State, 505 S.W.2d 838 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Worthington v. State, 469 S.W.2d 182 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). The indictment being fundamentally defective, and not alleging an offense against the laws of Texas, same is insufficient t......
-
Hass v. State
...see also Walker v. State, 539 S.W.2d 894, 896 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (essential element of theft is knowledge); Worthington v. State, 469 S.W.2d 182, 183 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971) (intent is essential element of theft); Coleman v. State, 832 S.W.2d 409, 413 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992,......
-
Reynolds v. State
...the consent of the owner' is now universally conceded to be defective." (emphasis supplied) See and compare Worthington v. State, 469 S.W.2d 182, 183 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), holding an indictment defective which contained the phrase "without the consent" of the owner but omitted an allegation of......
-
Baldwin v. State
...because it did not allege that Baldwin took the card with the 'intent to deprive the owner of the property' and cited Worthington v. State, 469 S.W.2d 182 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), a case under the general theft statute of the 1925 Penal In the present case, the motion to quash the indictment was ......