Case Name: BRUSENHAM v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1936-06-17
Citations: 97 S.W.2d 473
Docket Number: No. 18388
Parties: BRUSENHAM v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 97
Pages: 473–475

Head Matter:
BRUSENHAM v. STATE.
No. 18388.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 17, 1936.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 4, 1936.
Ronald Smallwood, of Tyler, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
CHRISTIAN, Judge.
The offense is receiving and concealing stolen property; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.
On the night of the 10th of September, 1935, three unidentified men stole some "Wilson Tongs" of the value of $200 from the Overtex Oil & Gas Company. Witnesses for the state testified that about a week later said property was found in the possession of H. L. Lewis, Joe Hunnicutt, and appellant. Again, the state's testimony was to the effect that appellant and Hun-nicutt offered' to sell the tongs for $75.
Appellant testified that 'he had nothing to do with the theft. He denied that he received the property from any person. In short, according to his version, he was guilty neither of theft nor of receiving stolen property.
We deem the evidence sufficient. See Palermo v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 82 S.W.(2d) 960, 961.
It was alleged in the indictment that appellant received the stolen property from some person to the grand jurors unknown. The assistant district attorney testified, in part, as follows: "I was present in the grand jury at the time of the investigation of the alleged theft of the tongs and at that time the name of the party from whom the property was received was unknown."
Appellant contends that the foregoing statement is not sufficient to show the exercise of diligence on the part of the grand jury in an effort to determine the name of the person from whom the property was received. We find nothing in the record to suggest that the grand jury might, by the use of diligence, have ascertained the name of the party from whom appellant received said property. We quote from Palermo v. State, supra, .as follows : "It is the rule that if there is nothing in the evidence in the trial to suggest that the - grand jury might, by the use of diligence, have ascertained the name of the party from whom the property was received, proof that they did not know such name is sufficient to sustain the allegation that same was unknown. Branch's Annotated Penal Code, § 2444; Wright v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 45 S.W. 1016."
The judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
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.