Case Name: BARKER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1927-11-16
Citations: 2 S.W.2d 851
Docket Number: No. 11165
Parties: BARKER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 2
Pages: 851–853

Head Matter:
BARKER v. STATE.
(No. 11165.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 16, 1927.
Rehearing Denied. Feb. 29, 1928.
Cunningham & Cunningham, of Big Spring, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty, of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction is for receiving and concealing stolen property, punishment being two years in the penitentiary.
Appellant undertakes to raise a number of questions which appear in the record in such condition that we cannot take cognizance of them. There is found in the transcript a document which purports to be objections to the court's charge. It is not verified by the trial judge and' does not recite that it was presented, before the main charge was read to the jury. Salter v. State, 78 Tex. Cr. R. 326, 180 S. W. 691; Castelberry v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 502, 228 S. W. 216; Rhodes v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 574, 248 S. W. 679. By bills of exception Nos. 1 and 3 appellant undertakes to bring forward objections to the charge, but by neither of said bills is it shown that the objections were presented in writing before the reading of the main charge. Article 658, C. C. P. (1925); Roberts v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 492, 269 S. W. 103; Wright v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 291, 272 S. W. 787; Butler v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. .R. 228, 288 S. W. 218; Scott v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. R. 376, 292 S. W. 891. Two special requested charges appear in the transcript. Neither of them show whether they were requested before the main charge was read, both are simply marked "refused" over the trial judge's signature without verification that exception was reserved to such refusal, and no separate bills of exception are found complaining of the court's action in declining to give them. Bland v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 636, 244 S. W. 1023; Linder v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 316, 250 S. W. 703; Cunningham State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 624, 262 S. W. 491; Benson v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 268, 287 S. W. 1097. Bills of exception 2 and 4 show no error. They each complain of certain questions asked of witnesses, but in neither bill is the answer given by or expected from the witness set out.
The subject of the theft was an automobile. It was stolen in Stanton, Martin county, and abandoned by appellant and two others in Reeves county when about to be •overtaken by officers. It was appellant's contention that he was not a party to stealing the car, but knew one of tbe other boys was going to steal it, and that after be bad done so appellant and bis companion got in tbe car with tbe tbief and left tbe county where it had been stolen. Tbe jury was justified in finding that appellant was a party to tbe removal of tbe ear and therefore in contemplation of tbe law "concealing" it. Tbe word "conceal" is not to be given tbe literal construction of hiding, but may be by handling tbe property in a manner that would throw tbe owner off bis guard in his search for it. Property may be concealed by carrying it off. Polk v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 150, 131 S. W. 580; Davis v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 611, 136 S. W. 45; Moseley v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 578, 37 S. W. 736, 38 S. W. 197.
Tbe judgment is affirmed.