Court Opinion

ID: 9647238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:27:49.504964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:46.875638
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ODOM, Judge.
We file this opinion on rehearing because the dissent places such great reliance upon the opinion of this Court in Clark v. State, 527 S.W.2d 527 (1975). That reliance is misplaced.
In Clark, supra, the sufficiency of the indictment to allege robbery by assault was not in issue. The indictment in Clark did allege ownership whereas the indictment in the instant case did not. Therefore, we take issue with the assertion of the dissent that “this Court has held contrary to the present case in Clark v. State.” The dissent also asserts, “This Court held [in Clark] that it made no difference who owned the property, but it was the possessor of the property that counted.” To the contrary, Clark merely applied the established rule, stated in Article 21.08, V.A.C.C.P., that ownership may be alleged in the possessor, and found the evidence sufficient on the allegations of both possession and ownership. It did not hold that ownership need not be alleged at all.
The State’s motion for rehearing is overruled.