Court Opinion

ID: 9648592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:28:50.329156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:03.481362
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Commissioner.
Appellant re-urges his contention of a fatal variance between the allegation and the proof, because the indictment charged that he did steal “fifty two dollars and ninety six cents in money” and the proof showed that he received from the injured party, in exchange for the check, $50 in cash and $2.96 worth of groceries.
We again overrule the contention and, in addition to the authorities cited in our original opinion, refer appellant to the rule stated in 41-A Tex.Jur., Sec. 178, at page 166, which reads as follows:
“Money.—In a prosecution for theft of money, it need not be proven that all the money alleged to have been stolen was taken; it is sufficient to prove that any part of the money was taken, provided that, where the prosecution is for felony theft, the amount shown to have been taken is sufficient to constitute a felony.”
We also overrule appellant’s contention that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction, because state’s exhibit #1, introduced in evidence, was a draft drawn on the First National of Livingston, Texas, and the evidence adduced by the state was that he did not have sufficient funds in the First National Bank of Livingston, Texas, to pay such draft. Appellant admitted giving the draft to the injured party and the proof was undisputed that it was not paid when presented to the bank. No claim was made by appellant that it was presented to the wrong bank for payment.
The fact that the draft was incomplete as to form by reason of the omission of the word “Bank” therein does not render the evidence insufficient to support the conviction. Redding v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 535, 265 S.W.2d 811, and King v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 432, 308 S.W.2d 40.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.