Case ID: tex-ct-app_16/html/0236-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Willson, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 3113.]
    Charles Bennett v. The State.
    1. Practice in this Court.—Statement of facts, unless authenticated by the trial judge, will not be considered by this court for any purpose ■whatever.
    8. Theft from the Person—Evidence.—Indictment for the theft of a watch and chain from the person of the owner alleged the aggregate value of the two articles, ' Held, not error to admit evidence of the value of the watch alone.
    8. Same.—Theft from the person is, per se, a felony without reference to the value of the article stolen, if of any value whatever.
    Appeal from the District Court of Denton. Tried below before the Hon. C, C. Potter.
    The conviction was for tb,e theft of a watch and chain from the person of L. Torply. The punishment awarded was a term of three years in the penitentiary.
    The matters embraced in the second and third head notes of this report were, with others, assigned as grounds for new trial,
    
      No brief for the appellant has reached the Reporters.
    
      J. S. Burts, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   Willson, Judge.

1. There is no statement of facts in the record such as we can consider. There is a paper in the record which purports to be a statement of facts, but the same is not authenticated by the trial judge, and cannot therefore be regarded. (White v. The State, 9 Texas Ct. App., 41; Myers v. The State, Id., 157.)

3. This being a prosecution for theft from the person, it was sufficient to allege in the indictment that the watch and chain alleged to have been stolen were, together, of the value of thirty-five dollars, without alleging the separate value of the articles; and such allegation being in the indictment, it was not error to admit evidence as to the value of the watch alone. In a prosecution for theft from the person, there is no grading of the offense by the value of the property stolen, as in the case of ordinary theft. The offense is a felony if the property stolen from the person is of any value whatever, (Penal Code, Art. 744; Flynn v. The State, 42 Texas, 321.)

In the absence of a statement of facts, other questions presented in the record cannot be considered. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Opinion delivered May 17, 1884.