Case ID: sw_200/html/0152-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PRENDERGAST, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CLEVELAND v. STATE.
    (No. 4779.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 19, 1917.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1918.)
    Criminal Law <&wkey;814(17) — Instructions — Circumstantial Evidence.
    An instruction on circumstantial evidence is not required on a prosecution for theft from the person, complaining witness testifying that when he met defendant he had money in his pocket, that he felt her hand go into his pocket, that he then examined his pocket and the money was gone, and that when he undertook to hold her, she ran, and handed something to another who then ran; this being equivalent to direct testimony of the taking.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Travis County; James R. Hamilton, Judge.
    Bessie Cleveland was convicted, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Faulk & Monroe, of Austin, for appellant. E. B. I-Iondricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, J.

Appellant was convicted of theft from the person, and assessed the lowest punishment.

The sole question in the case is whether or not the court should have given a charge on circumstantial evidence. The testimony of the complaining witness, Willie Carter, was amply sufficient to show that on the date alleged in the indictment he had in his pocket about $70 in money, and met appellant at night on one of the streets in Austin and there made arrangements to have sexual intercourse with her; that they went to a certain locality, and about the time he began action, he swore:

“We got ready, I got on her, and felt her hand go in my pocket — I had actually started to have intercourse with her, and felt her hand going in my pocket, in this left-hand pocket (indicating). That was the pocket in which the money was. Then I jumped up and grabbed my pocket at the outside, and saw the roll of money was gone — it made a big bulk — and I wasn’t satisfied, so I ran my hand in my pocket and saw my money was gone. I said, ‘You have robbed me.’ ”

She denied his accusations. His testimony then shows that she then tried to run, and he took hold of her and undertook to hold her. In the struggle she got loose from him at one time and ran to a negro man, who, it seems, was her companion when appellant first met her on said occasion, handed something to him, and he ran. He caught her again, and she, struggling to get loose, cut Mm several times with a knife. He at last drew the attention of others, got an officer and had her arrested. His testimony further ivas to the effect that on this occasion she got some $70 of his money.

It is so well settled that it needs no citation to the cases that, when' the main fact in theft, which is the taking, is proven wholly by circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to charge the law applicable to circumstantial evidence. It is equally well settled that when the taking is proven by direct evidence no such charge is required.

It is just as well settled, as stated by Judge White in section 813, subd. 3, in his Ann. Code Cr. Proc., that:

“Where the criminative facts established are in such close juxtaposition to the main fact as to make them almost equivalent to direct testimony, the court is not required to charge on circumstantial evidence.”

Pie cites several cases directly in point so holding.

Mr. Branch, in his Crim. Law, § 203, p. 107, states the rule thus:

“If the facts proven are in such close juxtaposition to the factum probandum (in theft, the taking; in burglary, the breaking; in murder, the fatal stroke, etc.) as to be equivalent to direct testimony, a charge on circumstantial evidence is not required.”

He cites several decisions of this court in point so holding. It is needless to collate the authorities, but see Egbert v. State, 76 Tex. Cr. R. 666, 176 S. W. 560, and cases there collated; Forward v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. R. 56-1, 166 S. W. 725, and cases there collated.

We think the testimony in this case is clearly within the law as stated by Judge White and Mr. Branch, and the court committed no error in refusing to charge on circumstantial evidence.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      <gzs>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes