Case Name: STILES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-06-18
Citations: 265 S.W. 590
Docket Number: No. 8428
Parties: STILES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 265
Pages: 590–591

Head Matter:
STILES v. STATE.
(No. 8428.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 18, 1924.
Rehearing Granted Oct. 29, 1924.)
1. Criminal law ¡@=>359 — Confession of another to stealing unidentified cow properly excluded.
Exclusion of testimony of confession of another to theft of a cow was not error, where such cow was not identified as the one defendant was charged with stealing.
2. Criminal law <S=o4l9, 420(1) — Testimony that third person committed crime charged inadmissible as hearsay.
Where evidence connects accused with crime charged, testimony that third person confessed that he committed the crime is objectionable as hearsay.
On Rehearing.
3. Criminal lav/ <®=>564(l) — In prosecution for theft evidence held not to establish venue.
Evidence held insufficient to show that theft of a cow occurred in county as charged.
Appeal from District Court, Mason County; J. H. McLean, Judge.
Arthur Stiles was convicted of the theft of cattle, and appeals.
Reversed, and cause remanded.
E. J. Adkins, of Brady, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is the theft of cattle; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two yea.rs.
Ellison had a pasture of 2,100 acres, situated in Mason county, about 3 miles from the McCullough county line. He had in his pasture a number of cattle, including a certain yearling, which was the subject of the present controversy. A gate from Ellison's pasture led into a lane going in the direction of the village of Voca, about 5 miles distant, in McCullough county. This gate was often open, and some of the cattle from time to time strayed into the lane. A yearling, which Ellison identified as belonging to him, was found in the pasture of Willis in McCullough county. Willis surrendered the animal to Ellison, stating and testifying that he had purchased it from the appellant. Appellant in turn testified that he had purchased the animal from Alvin Holt. The negotiation took place in the lane mentioned, and, according to the appellant, he and Holt went to the pasture of Spiller in McCullough county, where the appellant purchased the yearling, and put it in Willis' pasture. Holt assisted in driving the animal part of the way. Willis had previously indicated to the appellant his desire to purchase a yearling. The witness Evans for the state testified that he saw the yearling in the field apparently trying to get out; that it did escape and enter the lane mentioned. Soon thereafter the witness observed the appellant and Alvin Holt driving the animal in the opposite direction. From his testimony, if we understand it, the animal at that time was in Mason county. The witness identified the animal as the one which the appellant had sold to Willis. Witnesses were introduced by the appellant tending to show that the animal mentioned by Evans was not the one in question, but was one that belonged to the witness Clevenger, which was rightfully in the possession of the appellant.
There is much conflict in the testimony. Adams, a witness for the appellant, testified that he was present at a conversation in which Holt was offering to sell to the appellant an animal which he claimed was in Spiller's pasture. In a bill of exceptions, complaint is made of the refusal of the court to receive from Adams testimony that Holt had subsequently told him that the sale had been made. The bill, as qualified, shows that the evidence was received, and that the complaint is merely of an effort to have the witness repeat it.
Bill of exceptions No. 2 reveals an effort by the appellant to prove by the hearsay declaration of Holt to the effect that he wanted Mr. Arlege to help him out of trouble about a yearling that be bad sold. There was no error in excluding tbe testimony. Tbe purported confession of Holt in no way identified tbe animal in question. Moreover, there being evidence connecting tbe appellant with tbe taking of tbe animal, tbe receipt of tbe purported confession of Holt would have been obnoxious to the rule excluding tbe hearsay testimony. See Bowen v. State, 3 Tex. App. 617; Holt v. State, 9 Tex. App. 571; Horton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 24 S. W. 28; Hodge v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 64 S. W. 242; Greenwood v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 549, 208 S. W. 662.
Tbe sufficiency of tbe evidence is challenged, but we are constrained to regard it as sufficient. Tbe issues raised were submitted to tbe jury in a charge of which no complaint is made. Tbe solution of tbe conflicting theories in favor of tbe state is binding upon this court.
Tbe judgment is affirmed.
<@s3Por other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes