Case ID: sw_229/html/0857-02.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

DONEGAN v. STATE.
    (No. 6190.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 30, 1921.)
    1. Criminal law <@=528 — Confession of thief not admissible against his vendee, charged with receiving stolen property.
    In prosecution for receiving stolen property, the confession of the thief, made out of court, that he had stolen the property and had sold it to accused, in whose possession it was found, was admissible to prove that he was the thief, but not admissible to prove that accused was the receiver of the stolen property.
    2. Receiving stolen goods <@=3 — Purchaser of goods without knowledge not liable.
    If one accused of receiving stolen property bought the property without knowledge of the theft, he should be acquitted.
    Appeal from Nacogdoches County Court; J. M. Marshall, Judge.
    Jessie Donegan was convicted of receiving stolen property, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    S. M. Adams, of Nacogdoches, for appellant.
    R. H. Hamilton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The conviction is for receiving stolen property. A stolen pair of shoes was found in the possession of the appellant. The shoes were stolen by one Blount. He confessed the theft and stated that he had sold the shoes to the appellant. His confession, made out of court, was introduced against the appellant over objection. Blount’s confession was admissible to prove that he was the thief, but not admissible to prove that the appellant was the receiver of the stolen property. The reception of it was an'error. Watson v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 324, 87 S. W. 1158; Branch's Ann. Tex. Penal Code, § 71.

There were some special charges requested, but it does not appear that they were presented to the court within the time required by the statute (Code of Orim. Procedure, art. 737), nor were objections made to the charge of the court as required in article 735. On another trial, we suggest that, upon request, the court should instruct the jury that, if the appellant bought the shoes without knowledge of the theft, an acquittal should result. Basquez v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 329, 119 S. W. 861; Woods v. State, 75 S. W. 37.

Because of the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes