Court Opinion

ID: 9680742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:37:45.704815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:30.137558
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached by the majority but I would reverse on the sufficien*588cy of the evidence. Lusk, the manager of the feed yard, did not and could not testify that any grain was stolen.
It is elementary that m a prosecution for theft, there must be a showing that the injured party was in fact deprived of the thing alleged to have been stolen. By statute, a fraudulent taking must be shown. Article 1410, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.; cf., Ballinger v. State, 481 S.W.2d 421 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); Martin v. State, 95 Tex.Cr.R. 401, 254 S.W. 971 (1923).