Case Name: WILSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-10-22
Citations: 160 S.W. 967
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 160
Pages: 967–968

Head Matter:
WILSON v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 22, 1913.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 26, 1913.)
1. Larceny (§ 28 ) — Indictment — Sufficiency.
An indictment, charging that defendant •stole from a person named corporeal, personal property then and there belonging to such person, to wit, one purse containing money and checks, sufficiently charged the offense of larceny from the person.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Larceny, Cent. Dig. §§ 58, 59, 62, 99, 101; Dec. Dig. § '28. ]
2. Criminal Law (§ 1091 ) — Appeal—Stteei-ciency oe Bill oe Exceptions.-
A bill of exceptions to the exclusion of evidence, not showing what the alleged excluded testimony was, is so imperfect as not to require consideration on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2815, 2816, 2818, 2819, 2823, 2824, 2828-2833, 2843, 2931-2933, 2943; Dec. Dig. § 1091. ]
3. Witnesses (§ 337 ) — Evidence—Character oe Deeendant.
In a prosecution for larceny from the person, the fact that defendant was a prostitute can always be drawn out upon her cross-examination.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 1113,1129-1132,1140-1142, 1146-1148; Dec. Dig. § 337. ]
4. Criminal Law (§ 1170½ ) — Appeal-Harmless Error.
Where defendant; in a prosecution for larceny from the person, denied that she was a prostitute, error, if any, in permitting cross-examination as to her character, was not reversible error.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3129-3135; Dec. Dig. § 1170½. ]
Appeal from District Court, Austin County; Frank S. Roberts, Judge.
Kate Wilson was convicted of theft from the person, and she appeals.
Affirmed.
W. I. Hill, of Sealy, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PRENDÉRGAST, P. J.
"The appellant was indicted for the offense of theft from the person, convicted, and her punishment fixed at the lowest prescribed by law.
The indictment charges that she thus stole from Henry Thelen "corporeal, personal property then and there belonging to the said Henry Thelen, to wit, one purse containing- money and checks." The appellant, by motion in arrest of judgment, claimed that said description of the stolen property was insufficient, and that there was no allegation of the value of the stolen property. These questions have so many times been fully discussed and decided adversely to appellant that we deem it unnecessary to further discuss them or cite all of the authorities. But see Sims v. State, 142 S. W. 572, and cases therein cited, and Ferrell v. State, 152 S. W. 901.
By such an imperfect bill of exceptions as does not require this court to consider it, appellant, it seems, undertook to prove by the prosecuting witness what he told the deputy sheriff of the details of having sexual intercourse with the appellant, and to the officer making him hush because his family was there when he was telling these details. The bill shows no error. Besides the bill in no way shows what the testimony was that he claims was excluded. The court in approving the bill states that the witness was permitted to testify as to his drunken condition.
By a like insufficient bill appellant attempts to complain that the state, over her objection, was permitted to ask the appellant on her cross-examination, in effect, if she was not a prostitute. She answered that she was not. The fact, if so, can always be drawn out by cross-examination of a witness that she is a prostitute. McCray v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 612, 44 S. W. 170; McGrath v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 422, 34 S. W. 127, 941; Hall v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 489, 66 S. W. 783; Bigliben v. State, 151 S. W. 1045; Bird v. State, 148 S. W. 739; 3 Enc. of Ev. 759; [Wilbur v. Flood, 16 Mich. 40, 93 Am. Dec. 203.
Besides the witness having testified denying that she was a prostitute, no reversible error is shown. Sweeney v. State, 146 S. W. 885.
Appellant asked a peremptory instruction to find her not guilty because the evidence was insufficient to sustain a verdict, and also urges that the evidence is insufficient to do so. It would serve no useful purpose to detail the evidence. ' We have carefully considered it, and in our opinion it is sufficient to sustain the verdict and to show appellant's guilt as alleged in the indictment.
The, court gave a full and correct charge, submitting the issues properly to the jury. There being no reversible error, the judgment will be affirmed;