Donegan v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Donegan v. State

229 S.W. 857, 89 Tex. Crim. 105, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 366

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 30, 1921

DocketNo. 6190.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 229 S.W. 857 (Donegan 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

Donegan v. State, 229 S.W. 857, 89 Tex. Crim. 105, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 366 (Tex. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The convictipn is for receiving stolen property. A stolen pair of shoes was found in the possession of the appellant. The shoes were stolen by one Blount. He confessed the theft and stated that he had sold the shoes to the appellant. His confession made out of court was introduced against the appellant over objection. Blount’s confession was admissible to prove that he was the thief, but not admissible to prove that the appellant was the receiver of the stolen property. The reception of it was an error. Watson v. State, 48 Texas Crim. Rep., 324; Branch’s Ann. Tex. Penal Code, Sec. 71.

There were some special charges requested but it does not appear that they were presented to the court within the time required by the statute (Code of Crim. Procedure, Art. 737) nor were objections made to the charge of the court as required in Art. 735. On another trial, we suggest that, upon request, the court should instruct the jury that if the appellant bought the shoes without knowledge of the theft, an acquittal should result. Basquez v. State, 56 Texas Crim. Rep., 329; Woods v. State, 75 S. W., 37.

Because of the error pointed out the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The convictipn is for receiving stolen property. A stolen pair of shoes was found in the possession of the appellant. The shoes were stolen by one Blount. He confessed the theft and stated that he had sold the shoes to the appellant. His confession made out of court was introduced against the appellant over objection. Blount’s confession was admissible to prove that he was the thief, but not admissible to prove that the appellant was the receiver of the stolen property. The reception of it was an error. Watson v. State, 48 Texas Crim. Rep., 324; Branch’s Ann. Tex. Penal Code, Sec. 71.

There were some special charges requested but it does not appear that they were presented to the court within the time required by the statute (Code of Crim. Procedure, Art. 737) nor were objections made to the charge of the court as required in Art. 735. On another trial, we suggest that, upon request, the court should instruct the jury that if the appellant bought the shoes without knowledge of the theft, an acquittal should result. Basquez v. State, 56 Texas Crim. Rep., 329; Woods v. State, 75 S. W., 37.

Because of the error pointed out the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 S.W. 857, 89 Tex. Crim. 105, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donegan-v-state-texcrimapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack