Case Name: BROWN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-05-01
Citations: 148 S.W. 808
Docket Number: 
Parties: BROWN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 148
Pages: 808–811

Head Matter:
BROWN v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 1, 1912.
On Motion for Rehearing, June 5, 1912.)
1. Cbiminal Law (§ 1159 ) — Appeal—Conclusiveness of Verdict.
If the evidence conflicts so that a conviction or acquittal would be sustained if the jury believed the evidence, the appellate court cannot disturb a verdict of conviction.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3074-3083; Dec. Dig. § 1159. ]
2. Witnesses (§ 337 ) — Impeachment—Accused.
In a prosecution for hog theft, the state could show by accused that he had been indicted for cattle theft and for illegally marking a cow, the court having charged that the evidence was admissible solely for impeaching accused^ credibility as a witness, and could not be considered as substantive evidence to prove guilt.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 1113, 1129-1132, 1140-1142, 1146-1148; Dee. Dig. § 337. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Larceny (§ 55 ) — Sueeicienoy oe Evidence.
Evidence, in a prosecution for hog theft, held to sustain a conviction.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Larceny, Cent. Dig. §§ 136-150; Dec. Dig. § 55. ]
4. Larceny (§ 40 ) — Time op Oefense — Variance. _
_ It is proper to charge, in a prosecution for hog theft, that the jury should convict if they believed the offense was committed at any time within the period of limitations before the filing of the indictment, though not committed on or about the date charged therein.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Larceny, Cent. Dig. § 104; Dec. Dig. § 40. ]
Appeal from District Court, I-Iardin County; L. B. Hightower, Judge.
Tom Brown was convicted of hog theft, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Jno. L. Little, of Kountze, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For othor cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, J.
The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of hog theft, and his punishment fixed at three years in the penitentiary.
The appellant, in his motion for new trial and brief, claims that the verdict is contrary-to the law and evidence and without evi- denee to support it. We have carefully gone over and considered the statement of facts. If the state's witnesses are to be believed— and evidently they were by the jury and trial judge—-the evidence is ample and clear to sustain the conviction. If the jury had believed the appellant and his witnesses, they should have acquitted him.
Under such circumstances, the jury and the court below being by law made the judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, this court cannot disturb the verdict. It is unnecessary and would serve no useful purpose to give the testimony in this case.
Appellant complains of the charge of the court as follows: "The court erred in his general charge to the jury wherein he charges: 'Now, if from the evidence you are satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, Tom Brown, in the county of Hardin and state of Texas, at any time within five years next before the 6th day of April, 1911, which is the date of the filing of the indictment, in this ease fraudulently took from the possession of the said Tom Cravey the hog mentioned in the indictment,' etc. Because said charge is misleading and is upon the weight of the evidence, 'the hog mentioned in the indictment' was not dead in the month of January, 1910, and the .evidence shows that Tom Cravey had the hogs in the pen in January, 1910, and turned 16 head out at that time, and this indictment is for killing 1 of the 16." The indictment was found April 6, 1911. It charged the theft on or about February 15, 1910. The charge of the court above complained of is strictly in accordance with the evidence and the law and is not subject to the criticisms made against it, even if we could consider it at all. Berg v. State, 142 S. W. 884, and Ryan v. State, 142 S. W. 878.
The next complaint of appellant is that, while he was a witness in his behalf, he was required to answer questions by the state showing that theretofore he had been indicted for cattle theft and for illegally marking a cow. The court properly charged the jury that this testimony was introduced solely for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of the defendant as a witness, and could not be considered as criminative testimony in this ease. No objection was made to this charge. The court properly permitted the state to ask and the defendant to answer the questions. Branch's Crim. Law, § 868.
The only other ground urged by appellant is that: "The evidence shows that on the 15th day of February, 1911 (he means February 15, 1910), the date alleged in the indictment, the defendant was working at the sawmill and was not at home during the day. See Exhibits O and E. Reference is here made to the exhibits hereto attached and made a part of this motion." It seems that to this motion are attached three affidavits, one showing that the books of a certain lumber company show that one Will Floyd worked as a hand therein from February 1, 1910, to February 25th, inclusive, except that he did not work on the 6th, 11th, 13th, 17th, 20th, and 24th. The othei two affidavits are to the effect that the books of a certain lumber company show that Tom Brown worked for said company from the 1st to the 28th of February, 1910, except on tbe 6th, 13th, 17th, 20th, 27th, and 28th and only part of some other days during said month. There is nothing whatever in the record to show that any of this evidence was newly discovered evidence under the law, and the court did not err in not granting a new trial on this ground. Gray v. State, 144 S. W. 284.
The judgment will therefore be affirmed.