Case Name: Dudley McCoy v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1909-05-19
Citations: 56 Tex. Crim. 551
Docket Number: No. 4009
Parties: Dudley McCoy v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 56
Pages: 551–553

Head Matter:
Dudley McCoy v. The State.
No. 4009.
Decided May 19, 1909.
Rehearing Denied June 23, 1909.
1. —Theft—Possession—Charge of Court.
Where upon appeal from a conviction of theft the record did not support appellant’s contention that there was no evidence showing that the alleged property had been taken from the prosecutrix, there was no error.
2. —Same—Fraudulent Taking—Charge of Court.
An objection to the charge of the court on the ground that it is vague, indefinite and misleading, is too indefinite to be considered on appeal. Furthermore, the charge of the court is correct in the definition of fraudulent taking.
3. —Same—Charge of Court—Alibi.
Where upon trial for theft the court correctly charged on alibi, as applied to the evidence, there was no error.
4. —Same—Charge of Court—Defendant as a Witness.
Upon trial for theft there was no error in the court’s charge that defendant did not have to testify and that the jury must not consider his failure to testify as a criminative circumstance.
5. —Same—Circumstantial Evidence—Charge of Court.
Where upon trial for theft the court’s charge on circumstantial evidence was according to approved precedent, there was no error.
6. —Same—Evidence—Value.
Upon trial for theft of a watch, there was no error in permitting the prosecuting witness to tell what she gave for the watch; besides the evidence showed that the property taken was worth more than $50.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Harris. Tried below before the Hon. E. R. Campbell.
Appeal from a conviction of theft over the value of $50; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. .
The opinion states the case.
Heidingsfelders, for appellant.
F. J. McCord, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
BROOKS, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of theft and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.
The record before us shows the court adjourned on the 30th day of January, 1909, after having granted a twenty day order for the filing of the statement of facts in this case. The statement of facts was filed March 1, 1909. This being true, the same can not be considered in .passing upon the questions in this record. We find no bill of exception in the record, and in the absence of statement of facts and bill of exception there is nothing suggested herein that authorizes a reversal of the case.
The judgment is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.