Case Name: Alvis Jean HENDERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1962-10-03
Citations: 362 S.W.2d 322
Docket Number: No. 34801
Parties: Alvis Jean HENDERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 362
Pages: 322–325

Head Matter:
Alvis Jean HENDERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 34801.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 3, 1962.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1962.
Second Motion for Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1962
Orville A. Harlan, Houston, for appellant.
Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Walter A. Carr and I. D. McMaster, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
BELCHER, Commissioner.
The conviction is for shoplifting, under Art. 1436e, Vernon's Ann.P.C.; the punishment, three days in-jail and a fine of $25.
No statement of facts accompanies the record.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to quash the information on the ground that Art. 1436e, supra, is unconstitutional because it does not contain the element of want of consent, or the words "steal" or "stolen", which are essential to make the act charged a violation of the penal law. Appellant further contends that said statute is so indefinite, vague, and uncertain that it is wholly inoperative.'
The portion of the statute applicable in this case makes any invitee or licensee who removes certain property from its place, while such person is legally in a retail business establishment, with the intent to fraudulently take and deprive the owner of its value and appropriate it to his own use, guilty of the offense which is designated by the statute as shoplifting.
From the statute, it is evident that the legislature intended to create and make it an offense for any person by his own act and his own intent, not those of the owner, to obtain certain property by the means and in the manner therein set forth. It is concluded that the provisions of the statute under consideration are, within themselves, sufficiently definite and certain to apprise any person of the nature and character of the act denounced, and said statute makes such act a penal offense. Being drawn in the language of the statute, the information is valid.
The motion to quash the information was properly overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the Court.