Case Name: Archie T. VAN SICKLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1979-06-27
Citations: 604 S.W.2d 93
Docket Number: No. 57009
Parties: Archie T. VAN SICKLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: Before ONION, P. J., and ROBERTS and W. C. DAVIS, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 604
Pages: 93–101

Head Matter:
Archie T. VAN SICKLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 57009.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, Panel No. 1.
June 27, 1979.
On Rehearing Sept. 10, 1980.
Van A. Hutchins, on appeal only, Alamo, for appellant.
Charles R. Borchers, Dist. Atty., Donato D. Ramos, First Dist. Atty., Sharon S. Trigo and Alonzo Z. Laurel, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Laredo, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before ONION, P. J., and ROBERTS and W. C. DAVIS, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION
ROBERTS, Judge.
A jury found the appellant guilty of theft of property and it assessed his punishment at two years' confinement and a fine of $2,000. The State's case consisted of circumstantial evidence, the chief circumstance being the presence in the appellant's apartment of 16 pieces of stolen furniture. The appellant's explanation of this circumstance was that, with the cooperation of his roommate, he bought the furniture from a third person. According to the appellant, his roommate acted as intermediary by taking the appellant's payment to the third person and bringing back a receipt. When the appellant's counsel tried to elicit from the appellant the details of the arrangement, the State objected to "obtaining testimony from a receipt that has not been admitted in evidence." The appellant then offered the receipt as evidence. The State objected on the ground that the roommate was "available to verify the authenticity of that very exhibit." (In fact, the roommate was a co-indictee who had agreed to testify for the State in return for a dismissal of the charge against him. He denied knowledge of the receipt.) The trial court sustained the objection; this was error.
The appellant's "intent to deprive the owner of property" was an essential element of the offense. V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 31.03(a). By this indictment, the State also was required to prove that the appellant "knowingly and unlawfully appropriate[d] property . . . without the effective consent of . the owner. . . " If the roommate gave the appellant the receipt, whether "authentic" or not, it would be relevant to the issues of the appellant's mental states. Long v. State, 1 Tex.Ct.App. 466 (1876); see Goens v. State, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 73, 31 S.W. 656 (1895). That the roommate might (and later did) deny giving the appellant the receipt would create only a factual question of the weight to be given the evidence; it would not render the evidence inadmissible. Because the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming, we cannot say that the error in excluding this evidence was harmless.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
Before the court en banc.