Case Name: FANNIN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1934-06-06
Citations: 80 S.W.2d 992
Docket Number: No. 16788
Parties: FANNIN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 80
Pages: 992–994

Head Matter:
FANNIN v. STATE.
No. 16788.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 6, 1934.
Rehearing Granted March 13, 1935.
O. E. Florence and W. W. Sanders, both of Gilmer, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
CHRISTIAN, Judge.
The offense is attempted arson; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
The state's testimony was, in substance, as follows: Officers observed appellant place a paper sack behind the billboard in the lobby of the Liberty Theater in Gladewater, Tex. Approaching appellant, they asked him what he threw behind the billboard, and appellant replied: "Oh, nothing." Securing the sack, the officers found that it had in it some dynamite caps and a lighted fuse connected with four sticks of dynamite. The sack was full of smoke. Appellant said the sack contained a "stink bomb." While the officers were arguing with him about the matter, the smoke began to come out of the sack. Appellant then said: "Mister, throw that away. It is going to blow us all to hell in just a minute." One of the officers threw the dynamite into the street. Some time prior to appellant's apprehension, he had asked the proprietor of the theater for work and had not been given a job.
Appellant did not testify.
The proof showed that there was a partition between the lobby and that part of the theater where pictures were shown. There were walls on each side of the lobby up to the sidewalk. The operating room was immediately over the lobby. A roof covered the entire building, including the lobby. The lobby opened on the sidewalk. It is appellant's contention that the proof fails to show that he placed the dynamite in a house. He calls attention to article 1316, of the 1933 Cumulative Annual Part of Vernon's Annotated Penal Code of the state of Texas, which reads as follows: "Any person who wilfully attempts to set fire to or attempts to burn, or who shall aid or counsel in such attempt, or who shall attempt to procure the burning of buildings or property, such as are mentioned elsewhere in Chapter 1, Title 17 of the Penal Code »f 1925, or any person who shall place or distributé any inflammable, or explosive, or combustible material, or any substance of whatsoever kind or character, or any article or device in any building or property mentioned in the said Chapter 1, Title 17 of the Penal Code of 1925, in an arrangement or in preparation with wilful intent to eventually set tire to or burn said building or property, or to cause said property or building to be burned, shall be guilty of an attempt to commit the offense of arson, and shall upon conviction be sentenced and confined in the penitentiary for not less than one year nor more than seven years."
It is insisted that the placing of the dynamite in the lobby was not placing it in a house, as averred in the indictment under that part of the above statute relating to an attempt to burn by placing the material in the house. We are unable to agree with this contention. Under the circumstances reflected by the record, we think it is clear that the lobby was a part of the house within the contemplation of the statute defining attempted arson. Caddell v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 380, 97 S. W. 705.
Appellant further contends that the prosecution should fail because of the fact that there was no proof that dynamite will set fire to- and barn a bouse. This contention is made in view • Of tbe fact that it is alleged in tbe indictment that it was appellant's intent to eventually set fire to and burn tbe bouse in which tbe dynamite was placed. We do not believe this contention can be sustained. In Nelson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 66 S.W.(2d) 312, S13, the appellant was charged with arson by burning. Tbe offense was committed by exploding some gasoline'in tbe bouse. It was sought to have tbe jury charged to acquit tbe appellant of arson in the event that they found tbe bouse bad been destroyed by an explosion. In holding that tbe charge was properly refused, this court said: "We do not believe that the court committed any error in refusing to submit said charge, inasmuch as article 1309 of the Penal Code of Texas 1925 reads as follows: 'The explosion of a bouse by means of gunpowder or other explosive matter comes within tbe meaning of arson.' "
As shown in several bills of exception, appellant objected to testimony showing the location of tbe liberty Theater. For example, there was proof, over bis objection, that said theater was situated in the business district of Gladewater, and that it was near a flowing oil well. If this testimony was inadmissible, and this is not conceded, it is observed that tbe evidence of guilt is plain, and that appellant received tbe minimum penalty.
A careful examination of all of appellant's contentions leads us to tbe conclusion that reversible error is not presented.
Tbe judgment is affirmed.
PEE CUEIAM.
Tbe foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of tbe Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by tbe court.