Case ID: sw_289/html/1015-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

REVIER v. STATE.
    (No. 10493.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 22, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 19, 1927.)
    1. Robbery <0=323(1) — In prosecution for robbery, admission of evidence showing that witness, afraid, surrendered money when defendant and companion presented guns, held not error.
    In prosecution for robbery, admission of evidence that witness surrendered his money because defendant and companion presented guns and that witness was afraid to offer resistance held not error.
    2. Criminal law <@=>1169(1) — Admission of evidence that $14, not shown to be fruits of robbery charged, were taken from defendant when arrested, held harmless error.
    In prosecution for robbery, admission of evidence that át time of defendant’s arrest $14 were taken from him held harmless error, though such sum was not identified as part of fruits of crime.
    
      Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County ; Felix jD. Robertson, Judge.
    Henry Revier was convicted of robbery, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. L. Roark, of Dallas, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Dyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for tbe State.
   MORROW, P. J.

Tbe offense is robbery; punishment fixed at confinement in tbe peni- ' tentiary for a period of 25 years.

C. A. Bristol was tbe injured party. According to bis testimony, the appellant and another man entered Bristol’s place of residence, presented their pistols, and robbed him of a sum of money.

Tbe appellant’s confession was introduced in evidence, in which be admitted tbe commission of tbe crime in company with Jack Wages.

Tbe testimony of tbe witness Bristol to tbe effect that be surrendered bis money because tbe appellant and bis companion presented guns and tbe witness was afraid to of•fer any resistance was not improperly received.

Tbe bill complaining of tbe testimony of tbe witness Fritz to tbe effect that, at tbe time of tbe arrest, there was taken from tbe appellant $14 in money, reveals no reversible error. Tbe $14 were not identified as having been tbe fruits of tbe crime. Tbe injured party, however, testified that tbe appellant and his companion took $175. Appellant’s confession was to tbe same effect. The receipt of tbe testimony mentioned, even though it was immaterial, would not warrant a reversal.

Tbe judgment is affirmed. 
      (SsoFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes