Zitterich v. State, 46892

Decision Date12 December 1973
Docket NumberNo. 46892,46892
Citation502 S.W.2d 144
PartiesMichael Howard ZITTERICH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

James A. Attaway, Jr., Mesquite, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., John H. Hagler, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty. and Buddy Stevens, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The conviction is for theft of property of the value of over $5.00 and under $50.00; the punishment, nine months in jail and a fine of $201.00.

Appellant raises four grounds of error.

Grounds of error number one and two relate to the sufficiency of the proof of the value of the property.

A state's witness testified that he was a sales representative for a tire company and had been around the tire business all his life. He stated that the fair market value of tires and wheels, of the same kind and condition as those stolen, was $18.00 to $23.00 each. He stated that the value was definitely more than $5.00, and that he would not ask a price as high as $50.00 We hold this proof sufficient. See Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 468 S.W.2d 824; and Senters v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 423, 291 S.W.2d 739.

Grounds of error number one and two are overruled.

In ground of error number three appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to charge that two witnesses were accomplice witnesses as a matter of law.

The witness Linda Beshear testified that on August 11, 1971, appellant and three unnamed companions came to her apartment. She and another witness, Gail Worsham, left the apartment with the four arrivals. As they were leaving, one of the young men suggested stealing some nearby motorcycle parts. Gail Worsham instructed them not to do so because she knew the owner. As they continued toward their car, appellant told the witness that he did not think she and Miss Worsham could push two tires out of the bed of a nearby pickup truck. The girls then did so. The witness Beshear testified she did so on a 'dare'. The young men then picked up the tires and placed them in their car. The girls, being afraid that someone might see them while the young men were taking the tires, returned to the apartment.

Nevertheless, appellant asked them if they still wanted to ride in the car, and they agreed to go. They drove to a '7-11' store with the tires in the back seat, and subsequently returned to the apartment.

Some four hours later, appellant returned to the apartment with a different companion. The tires were in the car. The witness Beshear, the companion, and the appellant drove to a filling station where appellant sold the tires.

The witness Worsham testified to substantially the same facts. She further testified that,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • May v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 20 Mayo 1981
    ...fact question for the jury. See and compare Carrillo v. State, supra; Ward v. State, 520 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Zitterich v. State, 502 S.W.2d 144 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). In view of the court's instruction and the jury's verdict, we may consider the testimony of Miller in corroboration of......
  • Carrillo v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 19 Diciembre 1979
    ...of whether Chapa was an accomplice witness as a fact question for the jury. See and compare Ward v. State, supra; Zitterich v. State, 502 S.W.2d 144 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Allen v. State, 461 S.W.2d 622 The trial court did not instruct the jury that Taylor was an accomplice witness as a matter ......
  • Gamez v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 23 Septiembre 1987
    ...to the jury. May v. State, supra, at 340; Carrillo v. State, supra; Ward v. State, 520 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Zitterich v. State, 502 S.W.2d 144 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). Further, the court instructed the jury that Frank San Miguel was an accomplice witness as a matter of law and instructed......
  • Sanchez v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 27 Abril 2017
    ...offer an opinion consisting of a range of values based on the values of similar products in a similar condition. Zitterich v. State , 502 S.W.2d 144, 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) ; see McNiel v. State , 757 S.W.2d 129, 132 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no pet.). He likewise may base hi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT