Court Opinion

ID: 9641561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:34:44.368154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:00.228525
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellant takes us to task in his motion for rehearing1 for failing to address his third ground of error, which was that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Grand Jury made a diligent inquiry to determine the specific merchandise stolen.
The indictment alleged that the type of merchandise was unknown to the Grand Jury. The evidence adduced at trial was ambivalent as to the type of merchandise, and the Grand Jury foreman testified that the type of merchandise was unknown. The requirement that a showing of diligence on the part of the Grand Jury must be proven only applies when the evidence at trial establishes the type, kind, and quality of the goods stolen contrary to the evidence and allegations that the type of merchandise was unknown to the Grand Jury. This difference between the evidence of specificity and that it was unknown to the Grand Jury requires an explanation as to why the specifics were not known to the Grand Jury; thus the inquiry into diligence.
In Crocker v. State, 573 S.W.2d 190 (Tex.Crim.App.1978), the indictment alleged that appellant had exposed his son to radioactive material “in a quantity to the Grand Jury unknown.” The grand jury foreman testified that the amount was unknown to the grand jury. There was no evidence at trial of the exact quantity of radioactive material used. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that “[sjince the exact quantity and strength of the radioactive sources were never established, we cannot conclude that the grand jury failed to exercise reasonable diligence to determine that quantity.”
In Cunningham v. State, 484 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), the indictment alleged that appellant received stolen property from persons unknown. Appellant’s confession stated that he did not know the identity himself. The Court reasoned that the “evidence in this case does not show that the grand jury knew or could have known by the use of reasonable diligence from whom the appellant received the stolen property.” See Patton v. State, 696 S.W.2d 249 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1985, no pet.).
We hold, therefore, that because the evidence at trial did not show what the merchandise shipped was, it was not necessary for an inquiry to be conducted as to the diligence of the Grand Jury in attempting to ascertain the answer to the same question. Appellant’s first ground of error on motion for rehearing is overruled.
Appellant’s second ground of error on motion for rehearing complains that no element of the offense occurred in Texas which would grant jurisdiction over the offense.
The State of Texas, has jurisdiction over an offense that a person commits if the offense or an element of the offense is committed within the state or if the conduct inside this state establishes criminal responsibility for an offense in another jurisdiction that is also an offense under the laws of this state. TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.04(a) (Vernon 1974).
Appellant issued a check when he did not have sufficient funds on deposit in the Brownsville National Bank in Brownsville, Texas, drawn on his business account, *726which business was located in Texas; and, by his actions, he induced the victim to ship merchandise to his Texas business address.
Appellant’s second ground of error on motion for rehearing is overruled. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied.

. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 4.