Case Name: CHILDRESS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-05-03
Citations: 241 S.W. 1029
Docket Number: No. 6880
Parties: CHILDRESS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 241
Pages: 1029–1033

Head Matter:
CHILDRESS v. STATE.
(No. 6880.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 3, 1922.
Rehearing Granted May 31, 1922.)
1. Criminal law <§=>1087(2) — Unless record shows filing of bills of exceptions in. trial court, they cannot be considered on appeal. .■,
Although bills of exceptions were approved by a trial judge, where the record fails to show, that they were filed in the trial court, they cannot be considered on appeal.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Larceny <§=>32(3) — Separate property of wife properly alleged to be her property.
In an indictment for larceny of a grafanola, the separate property of a wife, an indictment alleging that the grafanola was the personal property of the wife was valid.
3. Criminal law <§=>! 144(12) — On failure of. bills of exceptions to make clear that a statement by defendant was made while under arrest, its admission is presumed correct.
In a prosecution for larceny, where testimony of an officer who arrested defendant that defendant said he had obtained a stolen grafa-nola from P. was excluded because defendant was at that time practically under arrest, and the state asked defendant, who was testifying as a witness, if he had not told the officer he obtained it from P., which was excluded, and later asked if the defendant had not so told the sheriff before he was placed under arrest,' which defendant admitted on appeal, on its being contended by defendant that only one conversation between him and the sheriff took place, and that defendant was under arrest at the time of making the statement, in view of the fact that the bill of exceptions did not make it clear that there was only one conversation, it will bo presumed the admission of. testimony was correct.
4. Larceny <§=>6, 46 — Testimony of owner of stolen property as to what was paid for it and what had been offered for it held competent as aid in determining “value.”
In a prosecution for larceny of a grafanola, testimony of the owner as to the price paid for it, and as to what had been offered for it, was competent as enabling the jury to determine its real “value” which, as it relates to stolen property, is the market value of the same at the time and place of the taking, if it had a market value, and, if not, the amount it would cost to replace the article.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series,'Value.]
5. Criminal law <§=>1091 (I I) — Bills of exceptions in question and answer form are not proper.
Bills of exceptions in question and answer jform are not proper.
,6. Criminal law <§=>371 (2) — Exclusion of evidence of illicit sexual relations between accused and owner of property alleged to be stolen held error.
In a prosecution for larceny of a grafanola, defended on the ground that the owner had defendant secretly pawn it for money which defendant gave the owner, after testimony by defendant that the owner had asked defendant for money which he did not have, exclusion of evidence of illicit sexual relations between the accused and the owner of the grafanola was error, since such evidence would tend to show that defendant had pawned [he grafanola to raise money for the owner.
7. Criminal law <§=>730(3)— Refusal to instruct to disregard question of state as to defendant’s reputation held error where it was not in issue.
In a prosecution for larceny, in which the accused had not put his reputation as to being a law-abiding citizen in issue, refusal of a trial court to instruct the jury to disregard a question by - the state as to whether defendant was a law-abiding citizen, to which an objection for the defense was sustained, was error, since the court should have so instructed the jury of its own motion, and should have reprimanded the district attorney for asking the question.
Appeal from District Court, Orange County; V. H. Stark, Judge.
Max Childress was convicted of felony theft, and he appeals.
Motion for rehearing granted, judgment of affirmance set aside, and judgment of trial court reversed^ and cause remanded.
C. W. Howth, of Beaumont, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction is for felony theft, punishment being assessed at ttvo years' confinement in the penitentiary.
Our Assistant Attorney General calls attention to the fact that none of the bills of exception appear from the record to have been filed in the lower court. They are approved by the trial judge, but, without the record shows the filing in the court below, they cannot be considered. Oliver v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 50, 124 S. W. 637.
We have examined the statement of facts, and find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict. It being purely a fact case, as the record now appears we deem it unnecessary to set out the evidence.
The judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.
<§=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
=>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes