Case Name: BLOCH v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-11-08
Citations: 193 S.W. 303
Docket Number: No. 4240
Parties: BLOCH v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 193
Pages: 303–313

Head Matter:
BLOCH v. STATE.
(No. 4240.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 8, 1916.
On Motion for Rehearing, March 14, 1917.)
1. Receiving Stolen Goods &wkey;>7(l) — Indictment — Concealing.
Under Pen. Code 1911, art. 1849, making it an offense either to receive or conceal stolen property knowing it to be stolen, an indictment charging receiving stolen property is sufficient, though it does not charge that the property was concealed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Receiving Stolen Goods, Cent. Dig. § 9.]
2. Ceiminal Law <&wkey;1090(8) — Appeal — Bills of Exception — Evidence.
Alleged error in admitting or rejecting testimony cannot be reviewed, where no bills of exception appear in the record in regard to such rulings.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2816, 3204.]
3. Criminal Law <&wkey;1092(6)—Appeai^-Re-vibw—Motion por New Trial—Evidence Offered.
Error in overruling a motion for new trial, based on alleged misconduct of the jury, cannot be reviewed where the evidence heard by the court below was not reserved by a bill of exceptions filed during- the term at which the case was tried; a supplemental statement of facts filed after the adjournment of the term not being sufficient.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2847.]
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal Law i@^o784(1)—Instructions— Circumstantial Evidence—Admissions.
Where there was in evidence an extrajudicial confession by defendant that he bought stolen copper, knowing it to have been stolen off the train, but there was no direct evidence of the theft, which depended on circumstantial evidence alone showing that the copper was loaded' into a railroad car, the doors of which were sealed, that the seals were broken soon after the train started and the copper thrown from the car, and that the copper was brought to defendant’s warehouse next morning, it was error not to give a charge on circumstantial evidence.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1900.]
5. Receiving Stolen Goods <&wkey;l — Requisites oe Oeeense — Receipt by Conspirator.
Where property stolen as the result of a conspiracy was delivered to one of the conspirators, that conspirator was guilty of the taking, not of receiving stolen property, though he was not present at the taking.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Receiving Stolen Goods, Cent. Dig. §§ 1-3.]
Prendergast, X, dissenting.
Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; W. D. 1-Iowe, Special Judge.
Herman Blocli was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he appeals.
On rehearing the original opinion affirming the judgment below was set aside, and the judgment below reversed, and the cause remanded.
P. E. Gardner and M. Scarborough, both of El Paso, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property, knowing it to be stolen, and his punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the state penitentiary.
Appellant sought to quash the indictment on the ground that it did not allege appellant "unlawfully and fraudulently concealed the property," as well as alleging that he unlawfully and fraudulently received it, knowing it to be stolen. Pen. Code 1911, art. 1349, makes it an offense to either receive or conceal stolen property, -knowing it to be stolen. It is not necessary to do both to be guilty of an offense, but the doing of either is a violation of the law. Thurman v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 646, 40 S. W. 795. The court committed no error in refusing to quash the indictment on the grounds named in the motion.
The motion for a new trial alleges many grounds as error in admitting and rejecting testimony, but no bills of exception appear in the record in regard to such rulings, therefore the questions are not presented in a way we are authorized to review them. Owens v. State, 4 Tex. App. 153; Smith v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 123, 29 S. W. 774; Janea v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 100, 119 S. W. 99; and cases cited on page 132, Branch's Annotated Penal Code.
There are but two bills of exception in the record, the first presenting the question that the court erred in failing to charge on circumstantial evidence, and erred in refusing to give appellant's special charge on that issue. This is not a ease depending on circumstantial .evidence. Stolen property is positively identified by several witnesses; its receipt by appellant is shown by positive evidence, Louis Cohn swearing to that fact, and then the state proves several admissions of defendant, in one instance Mr. Goodwin swearing appellant said, "I knew at the time I bargained for it, and knew when I paid for it, it was stolen off the train." Wampler v. State, 28 Tex. App. 353, 13 S. W. 144; Whitehead v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 124, 90 S. W. 876 ; and cases cited in section 203, Branch's Criminal Law.
The only other bill in the record relates to the action of the court in overruling his motion for a new trial. One ground of the motion alleges the misconduct of the jury. To properly present this question for review a bill of exceptions should have been reserved, and in this bill should be incorporated the testimony heard on this ground of the motion, and it should have been filed in term time. The term of court at which appellant was tried adjourned June 24, 1916. The bill in the record (which includes no testimony heard) was not presented to the court for approval until September 7th— some 40 days after adjournment of the court. There is with the record á separate paper, which is termed "Supplemental statement of facts, on motion for new trial," filed on September 8, 1916, in the trial court—long after court had adjourned for the term. In Black v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 185, 53 S. W. 116, this question was thoroughly discussed, and it was there held:
"These matters must be made part of the record during- the term of court. There is no statute authorizing- such matters to be perpetuated in papers filed subsequent to the term."
In that case the motion for a new trial alleged misconduct of the jury, as in this, and the court refused to consider the ground because the evidence heard thereon was filed after term time. The rule announced in that case has been followed in an unbroken line of decisions.
The judgment is affirmed.
<S&wkey;For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER m all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
«gbssFor otile? cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes