Court Opinion

ID: 9649028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:40:55.656477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:07.219871
License: Public Domain

OPINION
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR- REHEARING
ROBERTS, Judge.
Appellant strongly urges that the Court erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the son was the owner or joint owner on the date of the alleged offense. Ray Chung, on direct examination testified without objection that he owned the business on the date alleged in the indictment, to wit, June 9, 1969. On cross-examination it was developed that his father owned the business on that date and that he had “since inherited the business or a portion of it.” He testified on cross-examination that he had worked around the store for almost seven years or since he was fifteen years of age, that he had gone down many times to answer and investigate a burglar alarm that was ringing. The jury, being the trier of the facts, had sufficient evidence to and did conclude that the son, Ray Chung, was the owner at the date alleged under the charge of the court.
The ownership must be established as of the date of the offense rather than the date of the indictment. That part of Art. 21.08, V.A.C.C.P., referred to in the original opinion, is for the purpose of pleading where the property is owned by an estate of a deceased person at the time of the commission of the offense.
Remaining convinced that no reversible error has been shown, the appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
ONION, P. J., not participating.