Case Name: George Witten v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-11-24
Citations: 78 Tex. Crim. 148
Docket Number: No. 3791
Parties: George Witten v. The State.
Judges: DAVIDSON, Judge. — I will write a few observations later 'why I think this ease ought to be reversed.
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 78
Pages: 148–151

Head Matter:
George Witten v. The State.
No. 3791.
Decided November 24, 1915.
1. — Theft of Cattle — Sufficiency of the Evidence — Principals.
Where, upon trial of theft of cattle, the evidence showed that defendant and his brother stole the alleged cattle, and was sufficient to sustain the conviction, there was no reversible error on that ground, and the question whether they stole the cattle jointly or not becomes wholly immaterial. Davidson, Judge, expressing doubt.-
2. — Same—Venue—County Boundaries — Charge of Court.
' Where the sole question was whether or not the alleged cattle were stolen in Wilson County where the prosecution was had, or within 400 yards of the dividing line between that and Atascosa County, and the testimony was amply sufficient- that the stolen cattle were in Wilson County at the time they were taken by the defendant, and the court’s charge specifically required the jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant fraudulently took the cattle in Wilson County, before they could convict defendant, and also submitted in a proper charge the question of the county boundaries, there was no reversible error. Davidsoh, Judge, dissenting.
8. — Same—Confessions of Guilt — Bills of Exception — Practice on Appeal.
Under the undisputed evidence and the positive and unequivocal testimony of defendant, that he stole the alleged cattle, it becomes unnecessary to consider other bills of exception with reference thereto; however, when considered, there was no reversible error.
Appeal from the District Court of Wilson. Tried below before the Hon. F. G: Chambliss.
Appeal from a conviction of theft of cattle; penalty, two years imprisonment in the -penitentiary.
The opinion stales the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
G. G. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
PBENDEBGAST, PresidiNg Judge.
By indictment of the grand jury of Wilson County appellant was properly charged with the theft of twenty head of cattle from T. W. Gilliland, the taking being specifically charged to have been in said Wilson County. The jury found him guilty and assessed his punishment at two years confinement m the penitentiarj', the lowest prescribed by law.
The evidence, without the testimony of appellant, was amply sufficient to show that he and his brother, Nelse Witten, stole the cattle as alleged; but, whether they jointly stole them or not, so far as appellant is concerned in this case, that question becomes wholly immaterial, for the appellant testified fully, and he -specifically and positively testified that he stole the animals described in the indictment. He also testified that, when this case was first tried, he pleaded guilty under this indictment. How, or in what way, he got a new trial is not disclosed. His sole defense on this trial was that the cattle were not in Wilson County, nor within 400 yards of the line between Wilson and Atascosa Counties, at the time he took the cattle, but testified that they were in Atascosa County, and more than '400 yards in Atascosa County beyond the dividing line between said two counties when he stole them. So that the sole question was whether or not the cattle were, stolen in Wilson County, or within 400 yards of the dividing, line between that and Atascosa County. -
The testimony of the State, and as for that matter the whole testimony, was amply sufficient, if it did not positively and clearly, establish outside of appellant's testimony alone on this issue, that the stolen cattle were in Wilson County at the time they were taken by appellant.
The court, in submitting the case to the jury for a finding in his charge, specifically required the jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt, with all the other requisites, that appellant fraudulently took the cattle in Wilson County before they could convict him.
In another paragraph of the court's charge he told them on the question of venue that if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that he alone, or together with another or others, was guilty of the theft of the cattle as charged in the indictment, "and you further believe from the evidence that the original taking of such cattle (if any) was committed in the County of Wilson, or in the County of Atascosa and within 400 yards of the division line between Wilson County and Atascosa County, yon will find the defendant guilty." In the following paragraph he told them that if, on the other hand, they believed from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he alone, or together with another, or others, was guilty of the theft as charged,' "and you further believe from the evidence that the original taking of said cattle, if any, was in Atascosa County, and more than 400 yards from the division line between Wilson County and Atascosa County, this case can not be prosecuted nor convicted in Wilson County, and you will find the defendant not guilty."
These charges presented the question of venue properly to the jury, and none of appellant's charges on the subject should have been given.
Appellant has several bills of exception as to other matters, but, under the undisputed and uncontroverted facts of this ease and the positive and unequivocal testimony of appellant that he stole the cattle, they are all immaterial and pass out of the ease. However, we have eon- sidered all of them; and, even if it was necessary to pass npon them, they present no error.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affb'med.
DAVIDSON, Judge. — I will write a few observations later 'why I think this ease ought to be reversed.