Court Opinion

ID: 9943926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 15:19:04.246637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:52:10.555927
License: Public Domain

Appellant re-urges his contention that since the court's charge authorized his conviction upon a finding by the jury that he took the $2,930 from the 'person or possession' of Gilmore, the injured party, the verdict is without support in the evidence because of the absence of any evidence that he took the sum of money from Gilmore's person.
Under the provisions of art. 1408, Vernon's Ann.P.C., which defines the offense of robbery in this state, robbery includes the taking of property from the possession as well as from the person. Reese v. State, 91 Tex.Crim. R., 239 S.W. 619; Barfield v. State, 137 Tex.Crim. R., 129 S.W.2d 310, 123 A.L.R. 1093.
An indictment which alleges, as in the instant case, that the property was taken from the person and possession of the prosecuting witness may be supported by proof of a taking from his possession only. 37-A Tex.Jur., par. 67, page 55; Briggs v. State, 108 Tex.Crim. R., 2 S.W.2d 238. *Page 582 
Under the court's charge the jury was authorized to convict appellant of the offense of robbery upon a finding that he took the money from the 'person or possession' of the injured party. A general verdict was returned by the jury. In such case the verdict will be applied to the offense finding support in the evidence. Adair v. State, 155 Tex.Crim. R.,235 S.W.2d 170. The evidence clearly shows the offense of robbery by taking the sum of money from the possession of the injured party and supports the verdict returned by the jury.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.