Case Name: DAVIS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-04-27
Citations: 231 S.W. 784
Docket Number: No. 6220
Parties: DAVIS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 231
Pages: 784–786

Head Matter:
DAVIS v. STATE.
(No. 6220.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 27, 1921.
Rehearing Granted June 1, 1921.)
1. Criminal law <$->368t1) — Statements as to ownership of grain by those hauling it held res gestee.
In a prosecution for the theft of grain by one of those engaged in hauling it to the elevator, the warehousemen can testify that others hauling the grain to the warehouse stated it belonged to prosecuting witness, who had telephoned the warehousemen the grain was coming, since such statements were part of the res gestee of the connection of those parties with the wheat which they were then hauling.
2. Larceny <®=>43 — Evidence of amount paid and price per bushel is admissible to show quantity of wheat.
In a prosecution for larceny of wheat, the owner of the wheat can show quantity which he sent to an elevator, where he did not remember the number of bushels, by stating the amount of money he received for the wheat and the price per bushel, since the jury could determine the quantity of wheat from such evidence by a mathematical computation.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Larceny <®=55 — Evidence held not to sustain conviction for theft of wheat.
Evidence that defendant was one of several drivers hauling wheat for prosecuting witness, and that he disposed of a load .of wheat for his own account under suspicious circumstances, but which did not show clearly that the owner’s wheat was short or that any shortage could have been caused only by theft, held insufficient to sustain a conviction for theft of the wheat.
4. Criminal law 18 — Inference unfavorable to accused cannot be drawn from absence of testimony available to the state.
No inference unfavorable to accused can be drawn on the failure to produce evidence, where the evidence was available to the state, and it would have been to the. state’s interest to produce it if it had been favorable to the state.
Appeal from District Court, Randall County ; Henry S. Bishop, Judge.
Roy Davis was convicted of theft and sentenced to two years’ confinement in the penitentiary, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded on rehearing.
Kinder, Russell & Griffin, of Plainview, for appellant.
R. H. Hamilton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Appellant was tried for the theft of 68 bushels of wheat, alleged to have been the property of Embry Finley, convicted, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years, from which judgment he appeals.
• No exceptions were urged to the charge of the court, and no special charge requested, except one which was a peremptory instruction directing the jury to return a verdict of not guilty because of the insufficiency of the evidence. This peremptory request was refused by the court, and will be discussed later with reference to the sufficiency of the evidence.
Only two bills of exceptions appear in the record. It appears that the owner, Mr. Finley, did Sot haul the wheat in question himself, hut had the appellant, his brother, and two other parties haul it in and deliver it at the elevators. The witness J. B. Gurley was the manager of one of the elevators, and Mr. Finley had told him) that he was going to send wheat in, and while Gur-ley was testifying he was asked by the state if he bought any wheat from Finley, and, if so, how much; whereupon counsel for defendant asked permission to question the witness on this point, and it developed that the witness Gurley would answer that he only knew it was Finley's wheat from what the haulers said, and objected to .this testimony on the ground that it would be hearsay. We do not believe the court committed error in permitting the witness to state that the parties who delivered the wheat to the elevator told him it was Finley's wheat. Finley had told him he was going to send the wheat in, and the statements of the haulers at the time they delivered the wheat were res gestte statements of their connection with the .wheat, and, we think, properly admissible.
While the witness Finley was testifying he was asked by the district attorney how much wheat he had sold to the Townsend elevator. He was unable to state the number of bushels, but gave the aggregate amount of money he received from the Townsend elevator and the amount per bushel he received. This was objected to by counsel for appellant on the ground that it was not the proper way to prove the number of bushels of wheat he had sold to the Townsend elevator. We find no error in the action of the court in permitting this character of testimony. The witness may not have remembered the number of bushels delivered to the Townsend elevator, but, if he knew the amount per bushel he received, and the total amount paid him for wheat delivered to that «levator it was pertinent proof which would enable the jury to determine the number of bushels by mathematical calculation; hence we find no error, as presented by appellant in his bill of exceptions No. 2.
The witness Finley testified that he had threshed 1,776 bushels of wheat, and that most of this wheat, something in the neighborhood of 1,600 bushels, had been stored in a granary situated about 200 yards from where appellant lived; the remainder of the wheat being kept at his (Finley's) house. He did not know the exact number of bushels of wheat placed in the granary, hut estimated it to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,600 bushels. He secured the services of the appellant and his brother and two other parties by the name of Morris and Gassaway to haul and deliver the whéat from the granary in question to the two elevators at Happy, Tex. Upon checking up on his wheat he discovered a shortage, and an investigation resulted in developing the fact that on one day appellant was seen hauling wheat from the granary to one of the elevators at Happy, and on the next day was seen in the town of Canyon, 16 or 18 miles distant, with a load of wheat. The appellant's conduct with reference to the sale of the wheat in Canyon is not consistent with that of an honest man in relation either to his own property, or that in his possession rightfully. He sold this wheat in Canyon under an assumed name, taking a check payable to C. E. 'Clark. Afterwards he drew a check payable to himself, purporting to be signed by C. E. Clark, for the purpose of transferring the money to his own account. We cannot agree with appellant's contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict of guilty. His access to the wheat in the granary belonging to Finley is unquestioned, and his disappearance from home for a day and night at this particular time is unexplained. The shortage in the wheat as checked up by the owner, and the conduct of appellant in handling the wheat in the town of Canyon was sufficient, we think, to authorize the jury to find that the appellant had stolen the wheat from the owner Finley. This question was submitted to the jury fairly for their consideration, and they determined that issue in favor of the state, and against appellant a proper charge on circumstantial evidence was submitted. We do not feel authorized to disturb the verdict and substitute our judgment for that of the jury upon an issue of fact.
The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
©=»For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes