Constant v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Constant v. State

229 S.W.2d 791, 155 Tex. Crim. 6, 1950 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1719

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 26, 1950

Docket24749

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 229 S.W.2d 791 (Constant v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Constant v. State, 229 S.W.2d 791, 155 Tex. Crim. 6, 1950 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1719 (Tex. 1950).

Pincite

Opinions

[7]*7GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of theft of property over the value of fifty dollars and given a term of two years in the state penitentiary, and he appeals.

There are but two propositions presented herein: namely, the insufficiency of the evidence, and the claimed illegal arrest and search of the appellant’s automobile.

The facts show that on the morning of May 28, 1949, Officer Chaffin, a city detective of Fort Worth, was working in his yard; that he was off duty and not in uniform. He received a telephone call from a party whom he did not name, but said party told him that two men, describing them, were in a car that looked like a car used by telephone people, but that it had no name on it; that the car contained goods stolen in a burglary, a load of whisky; that the persons therein were on North Main Street and on their way to Oklahoma. The officer immediately got in his car and drove out on Main Street looking for a police car, the officer being unarmed. He drove about eight blocks on Main Street and ran onto these described persons in a car as described; that he stopped them and began to talk to them. He did not say anything about the whisky, but he insisted that appellant was one, J. C. Smith, whom he knew, and appellant denied being Smith. He then bet appellant a beer that he was Smith, and finally got them to drive to the city hall and settle appellant’s identity. Upon reaching the city hall, officers there searched appellant’s car and found twelve cases of whisky in the back thereof. The officer did not then know where the whisky came from, but soon thereafter it was found that the warehouse of Raymond Nichols had been broken into on the night before and twelve cases of whisky taken therefrom. The whisky found in appellant’s car was identified as that being taken from Mr. Nichols’ warehouse. This warehouse had a parking lot at the back thereof where goods were loaded and unloaded therefrom, and a 200 or 300-watt electric light was located on the wall of such warehouse about ten feet from the ground, which light was kept burning at night. About 10:00 o’clock A.M., it was discovered that this warehouse had been broken into and that the light had been turned off. Upon complaint being made to the police, the missing goods were found to be the cases of whisky found in appellant’s car.

We think the unexplained possession of recently stolen property would be sufficient upon which to allow this cause to go before a jury. See Branch’s Ann. Tex. P.C., p. 1332, sec. 2463.

[8]*8Appellant’s Bill of Exception No. 2 complains because of the fact that the arresting officer, Mr. Chaffin, had no warrant authorizing his arrest and detention; that there was not sufficient probable cause to bring such act within an arrest therefor. In answer thereto, we think Mr. Chaffin had probable cause to make such arrest. He had information that goods taken in a burglary were then being transported by two described persons in a described car on their way to Oklahoma, and although he did not give the name of his informant, the informer was evidently a credible person and was believed by the officer; and such informer evidently knew what he was talking about. These facts are uncontroverted, and under a long line of decisions found in Texas Digest, Vol. 12, p. 546, Criminal Law, Key No. 736, the question of probable cause becomes a matter for the court unless peculiar facts make it a jury issue. See many cases there cited.

However, we find a further ground present herein supporting this arrest without a warrant. Article 325, Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P., provides:

“All persons have a right to prevent the consequences of theft by seizing any personal property which has been stolen, and bringing it, with the supposed offender, if he can be taken, before a magistrate for examination, or delivering the same to a peace officer for that purpose. To justify such seizure, there must, however, be reasonable ground to suppose the property to be stolen, and the seizure must be openly made and the proceedings had without delay.”

This article operates independently of the doctrine of probable cause, and is “a wholesome statute designed to give protection from thieves, and we have neither the inclination nor the legal right to nullify its salutary provisions by declaring its operation to be controlled by the terms of the search and seizure law, enacted long after Art. 325, and which neither expressly nor by implication repeals it in our opinion.” See Hepworth v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 300, 12 S.W. (2d) 1018; Boles v. State, 137 Tex. Cr. R. 521, 132 S.W. (2d) 881.

This cause was submitted to the jury under the law of circumstantial evidence, and as a circumstance, a finger-print identified as that of appellant was found upon the lamp on the rear of the burglarized warehouse, which lamp was under a reflector and which had been turned off, evidently during the night time.

[9]*9We find no error shown herein, and the judgment will accordingly be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[7]*7GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of theft of property over the value of fifty dollars and given a term of two years in the state penitentiary, and he appeals.

There are but two propositions presented herein: namely, the insufficiency of the evidence, and the claimed illegal arrest and search of the appellant’s automobile.

The facts show that on the morning of May 28, 1949, Officer Chaffin, a city detective of Fort Worth, was working in his yard; that he was off duty and not in uniform. He received a telephone call from a party whom he did not name, but said party told him that two men, describing them, were in a car that looked like a car used by telephone people, but that it had no name on it; that the car contained goods stolen in a burglary, a load of whisky; that the persons therein were on North Main Street and on their way to Oklahoma. The officer immediately got in his car and drove out on Main Street looking for a police car, the officer being unarmed. He drove about eight blocks on Main Street and ran onto these described persons in a car as described; that he stopped them and began to talk to them. He did not say anything about the whisky, but he insisted that appellant was one, J. C. Smith, whom he knew, and appellant denied being Smith. He then bet appellant a beer that he was Smith, and finally got them to drive to the city hall and settle appellant’s identity. Upon reaching the city hall, officers there searched appellant’s car and found twelve cases of whisky in the back thereof. The officer did not then know where the whisky came from, but soon thereafter it was found that the warehouse of Raymond Nichols had been broken into on the night before and twelve cases of whisky taken therefrom. The whisky found in appellant’s car was identified as that being taken from Mr. Nichols’ warehouse. This warehouse had a parking lot at the back thereof where goods were loaded and unloaded therefrom, and a 200 or 300-watt electric light was located on the wall of such warehouse about ten feet from the ground, which light was kept burning at night. About 10:00 o’clock A.M., it was discovered that this warehouse had been broken into and that the light had been turned off. Upon complaint being made to the police, the missing goods were found to be the cases of whisky found in appellant’s car.

We think the unexplained possession of recently stolen property would be sufficient upon which to allow this cause to go before a jury. See Branch’s Ann. Tex. P.C., p. 1332, sec. 2463.

[8]*8Appellant’s Bill of Exception No. 2 complains because of the fact that the arresting officer, Mr. Chaffin, had no warrant authorizing his arrest and detention; that there was not sufficient probable cause to bring such act within an arrest therefor. In answer thereto, we think Mr. Chaffin had probable cause to make such arrest. He had information that goods taken in a burglary were then being transported by two described persons in a described car on their way to Oklahoma, and although he did not give the name of his informant, the informer was evidently a credible person and was believed by the officer; and such informer evidently knew what he was talking about. These facts are uncontroverted, and under a long line of decisions found in Texas Digest, Vol. 12, p. 546, Criminal Law, Key No. 736, the question of probable cause becomes a matter for the court unless peculiar facts make it a jury issue. See many cases there cited.

However, we find a further ground present herein supporting this arrest without a warrant. Article 325, Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P., provides:

“All persons have a right to prevent the consequences of theft by seizing any personal property which has been stolen, and bringing it, with the supposed offender, if he can be taken, before a magistrate for examination, or delivering the same to a peace officer for that purpose. To justify such seizure, there must, however, be reasonable ground to suppose the property to be stolen, and the seizure must be openly made and the proceedings had without delay.”

This article operates independently of the doctrine of probable cause, and is “a wholesome statute designed to give protection from thieves, and we have neither the inclination nor the legal right to nullify its salutary provisions by declaring its operation to be controlled by the terms of the search and seizure law, enacted long after Art. 325, and which neither expressly nor by implication repeals it in our opinion.” See Hepworth v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 300, 12 S.W. (2d) 1018; Boles v. State, 137 Tex. Cr. R. 521, 132 S.W. (2d) 881.

This cause was submitted to the jury under the law of circumstantial evidence, and as a circumstance, a finger-print identified as that of appellant was found upon the lamp on the rear of the burglarized warehouse, which lamp was under a reflector and which had been turned off, evidently during the night time.

[9]*9We find no error shown herein, and the judgment will accordingly be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 S.W.2d 791, 155 Tex. Crim. 6, 1950 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/constant-v-state-texcrimapp-1950.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack