Case Name: Raymond Harold Johnson v. State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1954-04-21
Citations: 160 Tex. Crim. 171
Docket Number: No. 26,946
Parties: Raymond Harold Johnson v. State
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 160
Pages: 171–173

Head Matter:
Raymond Harold Johnson v. State
No. 26,946.
April 21, 1954
Rehearing Denied May 26, 1954
Irwin and Irwin, by R. T. Scales and Robert C. Bervmides, Dallas, for appellant.
Wesley Dice, State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Judge.
This is a conviction for burglary; the punishment, six years in the penitentiary.
The indictment alleges ownership in the burglarized premises as being in Ben Brannon.
The sole contention presented in this appeal is that the state not only failed to support that allegation by proof but, to the contrary, showed the ownership of the premises to be in the Service Printing Company.
While it is true that the witness Brannon did not by his testimony expressly state his connection with the Service Printing Company or otherwise point out his relationship thereto, he did refer to the burglarized premises as his place of business and stated that it was burglarized without his knowledge and consent.
We note that the appellant recalled the witness Brannon after the state had rested its case in chief and proved by the witness that the $25 was missing from his place of business as a result of the burglary and that the money had not been returned to him. ' '
No issue was made upon the trial of the case as to the sufficiency of the proof of ownership or of a variance between the allegation of the indictment and the proof.
Indeed, the sufficiency of the evidence in the particular now insisted upon appears to be the subject of attack for the first time in this court.
For aught this record shows, Brannon may have been the sole owner of the business, as suggested by his testimony.
We are constrained to agree that, as here presented, the facts warranted the jury in concluding that the burglarized premises belonged to Brannon, the owner alleged in the indictment.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the court.