Case Name: MOORE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-12-20
Citations: 246 S.W. 90
Docket Number: No. 7466
Parties: MOORE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 246
Pages: 90–91

Head Matter:
MOORE v. STATE.
(No. 7466.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 20, 1922.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1923.)
1. Criminar law <§=>329(3) — Denial of additional charge- held not error where subject adequately covered.
The denial of special additional instructions authorizing the jury to convict for a misdemeanor if they found the value of property stolen to be less than $50 held not error where an instruction already given adequately informed (the jury on that subject.
2. Criminal law <@=>1037(2) — Prosecution’s reference to accused as a burglar held not reversible error in absence of objection.
Reference by the district attorney to the accused as a burglar held not reversible error in the absence of an effort to have the jury instructed to disregard it.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal law <§=^564(4), 1144(6) — Venue heidl sufficiently established and proof presumed where question is not raised.
Testimony by the prosecuting witness that the property the theft of which was the subject of the indictment was taken out of his house in the city and county of D. held sufficient to establish the court’s venue, and Code Or. Proc. 1911, art. 938, provides that the appellate court is to presume proof of venue unless the question was made an issue in the trial of the case below.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; A. H. Mount, Special Judge.
Will Moore (alias Henry Dee) was convicted of tbeft, and be appeals.
Affirmed.
John White and A. A. Dong, both of Dallas, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
Conviction is for theft; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.
The commission of tbe offense by the appellant is established by sufficient evidence, the details of which it is deemed unnecessary to recite.
The stolen property consisted of a band bag, two suits of clothes, and other wearing apparel and a watch. The wearing apparel bad been used, and there was evidence that its value exceeded $50. The question of value was embraced in a charge not materially different from the one approved by this court in the case of Cooksie v. State, 26 Tex. App. 80, 9 S. W. 58. It adequately informed the jury that, unless the proof established the value at $50 or more, the conviction should be of a misdemeanor, and not a felony. There was no error in refusing additional charges upon the same subject.
There is evidence that the home of the owner of the property was burglarized and the property taken therefrom; that a short time thereafter it was found in the possession of the appellant, and no explanation of bis possession of it was made. The district attorney in bis argument referred to the appellant as a burglar. The complaint of the argument, we think, is without merit. Certainly it was not such an argument as under the facts in the instant case demands a reversal in the absence of an effort to have the jury instructed to disregard it.
The other bibs of exceptions found in the record have been examined. No error is perceived, nor do they present any legal question which is regarded as requiring a discussion in this opinion.
The judgment is affirmed.
other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes