Case Name: BARNES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-03-31
Citations: 284 S.W. 577
Docket Number: No. 10049
Parties: BARNES v. STATE.
Judges: .MORROW, P. J,., absent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 284
Pages: 577–578

Head Matter:
BARNES v. STATE.
(No. 10049.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 31, 1926.
Rehearing Denied June 9, 1926.)
V. L. Shurtleff, of Breckenridge, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt, M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for tbe State.

Opinion:
BERRY, J.
Tbe offense is receiving and concealing stolen property, and tbe punishment is two years in tbe penitentiary.
There are contained in the record four special charges, each of which we have eon-eluded were properly refused by tbe court, Tbe first two of these were in effect peremptory instructions to acquit tbe defendant, and the third sought -to have tbe jury told that; as tbe indictment charged the receiving of tbe property in tbe fourth count from unknown persons, that tbe jury must therefore find that be received tbe stolen ear from more than one person before they could convict. This is not a correct statement of tbe law. On tbe contrary, we think tbe rule which makes tbe singular include the plural and tbe plural tbe singular applies in this case. Tbe other special charge found in tbe record is fully covered in the court's main charge.
There is some complaint at tbe court's action concerning a question which the jury sought to ask tbe court. Tbe court qualifies this bill by stafing that tbe answer given by tbe court' to said question was at the suggestion of counsel for the defendant, and that the special charge asked by appellant answering this question was offered after tbe question bad been so answered by tbe court. Under this condition of tbe record, we think no error is shown.
Tbe only matter .that has presented any difficulty in this case is as to tbe sufficiency of tbe evidence. We have studied tbe statement of facts very carefully, and, while tbe evidence is not as strong as it might be, yet we have reached the conclusion that it is sufficient to support the verdict.
Finding no error in tbe record, tbe judgment is in all things affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
Tbe foregoing opinion of tbe Commission of Appeals has been examined by tbe judges of tbe Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by tbe court
.MORROW, P. J,., absent.