Court Opinion

ID: 9661998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:56:42.555929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:35.719146
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
Appeal follows conviction for burglary of a building. Punishment was assessed at eight years. One issue upon which this case is decided is the sufficiency of the evidence *859to sustain the conviction. I therefore set out the evidence presented at trial by the State in its summarized entirety.
The first witness was Mrs. Raymond Humphreys, the owner of a dry goods store in Amherst at which various types of clothing were sold. She testified that around 5:00 p. m. on the evening of May 7, 1975, three females entered and looked at clothing for about an hour. She identified one of the women as Gracie Wilson and another as appellant. At 6:00 p. m. Humphreys asked the women to leave because she was closing. The next morning, May 8, 1975, she discovered that a glass door at her store was broken .and approximately $3,000.00 worth of merchandise, mostly clothing, had been taken. Humphreys stated that she was “familiar” with her merchandise, but that there was no particular marking on each garment to identify it as having come from her store. She admitted that the clothes she sold were available through other retailers nationally. She stated, however, that it would be unlikely that anyone would possess clothing of all the types and brands that she sold.
After discovering the burglary, Hum-phreys called the sheriff who came that day to investigate. The sheriff left after a brief visit, but he returned later that day with several garments. Humphreys told him that she recognized only one of the items as the type sold at her store. About three months later, in August of 1975, Humphreys went to the Lubbock police station where she identified a group of clothing as having been taken in the burglary. She based her identification on knowledge of “the sizes, and colors and the kinds” of clothing sold at her place of business.
The second witness was Tressie Carpenter, who lived next door to the burglarized store. She heard a noise that attracted her attention around 5:30 a. m. on May 8, 1975. She saw a car driving down the alley by her house. She could not identify the passengers, nor could she say where the car had come from or where it went. Her testimony as to the observation of the car was as follows:
“Q: Can you describe that car for me?
A: Well, I didn’t pay much attention, but I got the impression that it was a light top convertible.
Q: What, if anything, was peculiar about it when you saw it?
A: Well, it had the turtle — the turtle wasn’t closed. It was going up and down.1
Q: And could you see if there was anyone in the vehicle?
A: No, I couldn’t see that.”
The third witness was Earl Rankin, a detective with the Lubbock Police Department. In August of 1975 he received information that there were stolen clothes from a different burglary in Henderson, at an apartment rented by appellant in Lubbock. Rankin obtained a search warrant, and he went to appellant’s apartment with two other officers. They observed an unidentified man leaving the apartment wearing a coat that appeared to have come from the Henderson burglary. The officers approached the apartment and knocked on the door. When no one answered, they forced open the door. They found a woman downstairs named Deborah Davis. Gracie Wilson was in the upstairs north bedroom, and appellant was found in the upstairs south bedroom. The officers seized clothing found in the apartment and in a storage area on the apartment patio. That clothing was identified by Mrs. Humphreys as having been taken from her store.
The next witness was Jackie Peoples, a Texas Ranger stationed in Lubbock. He assisted the sheriff in investigating the burglary of the store owned by Mrs. Hum-phreys, and was present during the search of appellant’s apartment. He found some quilts, which were later identified by Mrs. Humphreys, in the north bedroom where Gracie Wilson was staying; but could not *860“specifically” remember any of the items being found in the south bedroom where appellant was arrested.
Peoples further testified that one of the items of clothing taken from the apartment had been worn by appellant in the “latter part” of May. Appellant had surrendered herself to the sheriff of Lubbock on a probation revocation warrant, and Peoples observed appellant wearing the garment. He did not take the clothing into custody at that time, however, and it was later found among the other clothes in the apartment.
The next witness was Doyle Nelson, a Lubbock City Policeman, who also participated in the search of appellant’s apartment. He testified that a green Oldsmobile convertible with a light colored top was found at the apartment. Nelson further stated that he had seen appellant riding as a passenger in the car on past occasions, but he had never seen her drive it.
The next witness was Charles Campbell. He worked as the executive manager for Jason Enterprises renting apartments .in Lubbock, Texas. He testified that appellant came to his office with Deborah Davis, and appellant signed an application to lease an apartment. The apartment was then leased to appellant and Davis jointly.
The final State witness was E. D. McNeese, sheriff of Lamb County. He verified that he investigated the burglary that occurred at the Amherst clothing store. He observed outside some footprints which he determined were “made by a female.” He made that determination based on the size of the feet and type of soles on the shoes. He discussed the visit to appellant around May 20, 1975, with Ranger Peoples. McNeese verified that appellant was wearing clothing items identified as having been taken in the burglary.
The general rule is that in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, it will be viewed in the light most favorable to the jury verdict. Bowers v. State, 570 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). When the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, as in appellant’s case, the evidence is insufficient if the circumstances do not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused. Stogsdill v. State, 552 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). As we stated recently in Sewell v. State, 578 S.W.2d 131, 135 (Tex.Cr.App.1979):
“In ascertaining whether the guilt of the accused has been established to a moral certainty, the appellate court will review evidence in light of the presumption that the accused is innocent. The court will not presume any acts against the accused that are not shown to have been committed by him. Furthermore, a conviction will not be sustained on appeal if the evidence does not sufficiently establish all material elements of the offense charged.” [Quoting from Culmore v. State, 447 S.W.2d 915 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).]
A careful review of the State’s evidence outlined above convinces me that it is insufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction. Appellant was not identified by anyone as having been present at the burglary. The neighbor, Tressie Carpenter, did not see the burglary or anyone who was riding in the automobile she observed. Carpenter could only very cautiously say that the car was a convertible, and the evidence showed only a tenuous connection between appellant and an Oldsmobile convertible. The footprints found at the store were characterized as being “female” in origin. Even if this suspect hypothesis is accepted, the footprint was not matched to appellant, and numerous females could have made the print.
The only other link of appellant to the store is that she visited it the evening before. Presence at the scene of a burglary has some probative value, but the limitation on the degree of its probativeness is demonstrated by the rule that presence alone will not sustain a conviction. Robinson v. State, 570 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Vela v. State, 491 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). The further the time from the commission of the offense, the less probative value presence at the scene will have. In this instance, being at the store the evening before is of slight probative value.
*861Although there was no State’s brief filed in this case, the majority relies on the theory of an inference of guilt arising from possession of recently stolen goods. For that exception to apply, the possession must be: (1) personal; (2) recent; (3) unexplained; and (4) a distinct and conscious assertion of property by the defendant. McKnight v. State, 399 S.W.2d 552 (Tex.Cr.App.1966). The clothes found in the apartment jointly leased by appellant fail on at least two of the above grounds. First, the clothes were not found until more than three months after the burglary. Second, the apartment was not under appellant’s exclusive and personal control, and the evidence failed to show that any clothes were found in the room occupied by appellant. Such evidence is insufficient to raise the inference of guilt. McKnight v. State, supra, at 555.
Finally, the fact that Ranger Peoples and Sheriff McNeese observed appellant wearing merchandise identified as taken in the burglary is not enough to salvage the State’s case. The viewing occurred around two weeks after the burglary. The facts are very similar to the case of Beathard v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 2, 70 S.W.2d 151 (1934), in which the defendant was accused of burglary of a home in which clothes were taken. A witness testified that the defendant and his brother brought some of the stolen goods to that witness’ house the same month that the burglary occurred. This Court concluded that the possession at that time did not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that others may have committed the offense, and that the defendant may have gained possession in some other manner. In Beathard, as in this case, there was evidence that raised other reasonable hypotheses as to how the burglary may have been committed. In this case, any of the other persons at the apartment could have committed the offense without any involvement by appellant.
For these reasons the judgment must be reversed and the cause ordered dismissed. Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19, 98 S.Ct. 2151, 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978). Because it is not, I dissent.2

. The witness provided no explanation of what a “turtle” is, but presumably she was referring to the trunk lid of the car.

. Citing only a decision by the Fifth Circuit the majority also errs in finding that an election by an accused that the jury assess punishment “at the time he enters his plea in open court” means when he responds to a reading of the indictment in presence of a jury that has already been selected and impanelled. Since at arraignment an accused personally “enters his plea in open court” the statute should be read to refer to that occasion to effect judicial economy and to obtain jurors whose views on punishment are immaterial to their task.