Case Name: MEHLMAN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-04-26
Citations: 244 S.W. 523
Docket Number: No. 6711
Parties: MEHLMAN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 244
Pages: 523–525

Head Matter:
MEHLMAN v. STATE.
(No. 6711.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 26, 1922.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 1, 1922.)
1. Criminal law <§=»1095 — Bill of exceptions not filed in time will be stricken out.
Where the time allowed appellant in which to file bill of exceptions expired January 2, 1922, and he filed his bill on January 5, 1922, a motion to strike out the bill will be sustained.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Receiving stolen goods <§=>8 (2) — In prosecution for receiving stolen goods, acts and declarations of original takers admissible.
Where, in a prosecution for receiving and concealing stolen property, it is necessary to prove the theft, the acts and declarations of the original takers are admissible.
3. Criminal law <§=>673(2)— Evidence of declarations of thief must be limited in charge in prosecution for receiving stolen goods to showing theft.
In a prosecution for receiving and concealing stolen goods, the purpose of the admission of the acts and declarations of the original taker introduced to prove the theft must be restricted in the charge.
4. Witnesses <§=>48(4) — Confession of thief before conviction, admissible in prosecution for recovering stolen goods.
The inhibition against testimony of an un-pardoned convict does not apply to a confession made before the person making it was convicted of the crime, and hence confession by the takers of stolen property, in a prosecution of another for receiving and concealing the property, was admissible, though such takers were thereafter convicted of burglary.
5. Criminal law <§=>369(9) — Proof of dealings witty one from whom accused received stolen property held admissible to rebut good faith.
In prosecution for receiving and concealing stolen property, proof of continued and surreptitious purchases at nighttime from one subsequently convicted of a theft, and of other similar transactions, though disconnected, is admissible in rebutting appellant’s claim of good faith on the purchase of the stolen articles.
6. Receiving stolen goods <§=>9(l) — Whether accused knew that property received by him was stolen held for jury.
It was a question for the jury, to decide whether accused knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the property received by him was stolen property.
7. Witnesses <§=(337(6) — Evidence of former conviction is admissible to affect credibility of accused.
In prosecution for receiving stolen property, in which accused was a witness in his own behalf, a judgment showing him to have been convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property, two weeks subsequent to the date of the act charged in the instant, case, is admissible for the purpose of affecting his credibility.
8. Witnesses <§=>359 — Absence of word “county” in judgment of conviction introduced to impeach accused held no valid objection.
Where a judgment of conviction of a crime was introduced to impeach accused, it was no valid objection that the judgment failed to use-the word “county” in referring to the jail in which accused was to be confined. -
9. Criminal law <§=l 173(3) — Where conviction was for misdemeanor, refusal of charges relating to value of the stolen property held not error.
In a prosecution for receiving and concealing stolen goods, refusal of charges relating to the question of the determination of the value of the goods is not erroneous where accused was convicted of a misdemeanor.
10. Criminal law <§=>780(2) — Where confessions .of takers of goods were introduced to prove theft, charge on accomplice testimony not necessary in prosecution for receiving goods.
Where the portions of the confessions of the original takers of stolen property were admitted to prove the theft, it was not necessary to charge the law of accomplice testimony in a prosecution for receiving and concealing such property.
Appeal from District Court, Ellis County; W. D. Harding, Judge.
Mike Mehlman was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Tom Whipple, of Waxahachie, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Ellis county of receiving and concealing stolen property of value less than $50, and his punishment fixed- at a fine of $500 and 30 days in the county jail.
The trial term of the court below ended December 3, 1021. In his order overruling appellant's motion for a new trial the court granted 30 days after his adjournment in which to file bills of exception. This time allowed appellant for said purpose expired January 2, 1922. The bills of exception were filed on January 5th. Our Assistant-Attorney General has moved to strike. out said bills of exception because filed too late. The motion must be sustained.
The evidence fully supports the judgment. That the property in question was stolen was shown beyond question. Same consisted of automobile tires, and it appears without controversy that four of said casings were taken to appellant the same night they were stolen, and his own testimony, besides that of various other witnesses, leaves no doubt of his knowledge of the stolen character of said property. He carried the casings to Dal las, and sold two of them and turned the other two over to a party to sell for him.
No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
— -.t?riT other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes