Case Name: JOHNSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1934-05-02
Citations: 72 S.W.2d 288
Docket Number: No. 16680
Parties: JOHNSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 72
Pages: 288–290

Head Matter:
JOHNSON v. STATE.
No. 16680.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 2, 1934.
Rehearing Denied June 13, 1934.
Shields I. Cornett, of Linden, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Conviction for chicken theft; punishment, a fine of $10.
Appellant raises many questions, and has prepared and presents a brief showing labor and effort.
He directs complaint at the statute under which this prosecution is had. See chapter 10S, Acts 41st Legislature (1929), Regular Session. (Vernon's Ann. P. C. art. 1442b). Said statute penalizes him who steals chickens, turkeys, etc. Article 1425 of our Penal Code 1925 makes the word "steal" to mean and include theft of property mentioned in such connection.
Complaint is made of the fact that the offense involved is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, also by imprisonment in the county jail, and also by fine, and it is insisted that this fact makes the law invalid. Article 47, P. C., provides that every offense which may, not must, be punishable by confinement in the penitentiary is a felony, and we do not think the fact that there are alternative punishments which might have been deemed properly affixed to misdemeanor offenses would prevent this case from being a felony. Examination of the Acts of the 41st Legislature, above referred to, makes plain the fact that by same the taking of any chicken or turkey was specifically made a felony. There is no doubt of the authority and power of the Legislature to select any kind of property and make the taking of that property a felony, a,nd in such case it is not necessary to allege the value of the property so taken. See articles 1420-1423, P. C. 1925. In his brief appellant cites the ease of Hasley v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 45, 94 S. W. 899, as supporting his contention that the indictment is bad because no value is therein assigned to the chickens alleged to have been taken. When the opinion in said case was written, there was no statute in this state making the theft of chickens per se a felony; hence the holding. Not so now.
We do not think the enactment set out in chapter 108, supra, is unconstitutional. The reasons advanced by this court in Redding v. State, 109 Tex. Cr. R. 550, 6 S.W.(2d) 361, for holding the statute there involved unconstitutional, are not found in the present case. The law there involved was one which made the act of taking any chicken both a felony and a misdemeanor. In the law of the case before us the taking of any chicken, turkey, etc., is made only a felony. We have carefully examined all of the authorities cited *by appellant in his brief. We find nothing in section 35 of article 3, or section 10 of article 1 of our Constitution which is in any wise transgressed by the statute here attacked and involved.
Finding no error in the -record, the judgment will be affirmed.