Case ID: sw_287/html/0152-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BAKER, J. MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YORK v. STATE.
    (No. 10344.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 27, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <@=3l 120(3) — Bill complaining of refusal to permit answers to questions held not to show error, where answers were not set out.
    Bills of exception, complaining of court’s refusal to permit witnesses to answer questions, held not to show error, where answers which witnesses, would have given were not set out.
    2. Criminal law <3&wkey;1120(8) — Bill complaining of state’s testimony as to certain fact, unaccompanied by facts sufficiently clarifying matter, held to show no error.
    Bill of exceptions complaining of court’s action in permitting state to prove that witness saw some one driving “black, bald-faced mule to wagon,” held to show no error; there being insufficient statement of facts involved to enable determination of supposed error complained of.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;l 159(3) — Finding of jury on conflicting evidence is conclusive.
    Binding of jury on conflicting evidence is conclusive on Court of Criminal Appeals.
    • On Motion for Rehearing.
    4. Burglary .<©=341(1) — Evidence in prosecution for burglary of blacksmith shop held to support conviction.
    Evidence in prosecution for burglary of blacksmith shop held to warrant conviction; there being showing of breaking, removal, and finding of stolen tools in defendant’s possession.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, San Saba County; J. H. McLean, Judge.
    John York was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. Mitch Johnson, of San Saba, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeclt, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was convicted in the district court of San Saba county for the offense of burglary, and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

It was the contention of the state that the appellant broke into a shop upon the premises owned by one W. R. Ledbetter, which were then in the possession, and under the control, of T. U. Myers, and stole' therefrom an anvil, blower, and some blacksmithing tools, which were later found in appellant’s possession, and identified as the property of the said Led-better ; and that, at the time when said articles were discovered in the possession of appellant, he stated and contended that he knew nothing about them, and that they were on the premises when he moved there a short time previously. The appellant, upon the trial, contended, and testified to that effect, that he purchased the articles in question from a Mr. Hector, who was dead at the time of the trial, but who had formerly been a renter on the Ledbetter premises. Appellant further testified that he took said articles from the shop on the premises, but contended that the door was open at the time.

The appellant, in bills of exception 2 and S, complains of the action of the court in refusing to permit thq witnesses Hopson and Northcutt to answer questions propounded to them relating to an alleged conversation with H. A. Hector regarding the sale of an anvil, vise, and forge. These bills fail to set out or state the answers which would have been given by the witnesses to said questions, had they been permitted to reply, and therefore are insufficient to apprise this court of the alleged error complained of. Branch’s Ann. P. ,0. § 212, citing Harris v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. R. 251, 148 S. W. 1074; Fletcher v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 135, 153 S. W. 1134. Also see Hennington v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 12, 274 S.W. 599.

In bill No. 4 the appellant complains of the action of the court in permitting the state to prove by the witness Myers that he saw some one driving “a black, bald-faced mule to a wagon.” This bill, as presented, shows no error, in that there is not a sufficient statement of the facts involved for this court to determine the supposed error complained of. Branch’s Ann. P. C. § 207, citing James v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 75, 138 S. W. 612. Also see Kitchen v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 439, 276 S. W. 252.

The appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to warrant his conviction. After a careful examination of the entire record, we are unable to reach the conclusion that the verdict of the jury was unauthorized by the evidence, and, there being sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, this court would be without authority to interfere with the finding of the jury thereon.

Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

PER OURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

In his motion the appellant challenges the correctness of the holding of this court that the evidence is sufficient. No analysis of the evidence is made by him. We have examined it, however, in response to the motion for rehearing. According to the state’s evidence, a certain blacksmith shop and equipment were located upon the premises of Ledbetter, which were leased to one Myers. The house in which the things were situated was opened,'and the property taken out. It was afterwards found in possession of the appellant many miles from the premises of Myers. When first challenged, appellant gave an explanation of his possession of the property quite inconsistent with that which he gave in his testimony upon the trial of the case.'- He gave testimony explaining this inconsistency, and claimed that he had bought the property from one Hector. Hector died before the trial took place, but his wife and other relatives of Hector gave testimony tending to contradict the appellant’s claim that he bought the property from Hector.

The examination leaves us of the opinion that the conclusion expressed in the original hearing is correct.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.