Edwards v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Edwards v. State

79 S.W. 308, 47 Tex. Crim. 65, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 223

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 23, 1904

DocketNo. 2994.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 S.W. 308 (Edwards 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

Edwards v. State, 79 S.W. 308, 47 Tex. Crim. 65, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 223 (Tex. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

BBOOKS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the theft of a bale of cotton, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years. The facts in this case show that appellant and his partner, Lawrence, were running a gin at the town of Heath, Bockwall County; that prosecuting witness brought cotton to the gin, which was ginned into a bale, and left in the custody of appellant and his partner in the gin lot. Appellant took charge of the cotton and sold it. Under this state of facts appellant would not be guilty of theft; but if guilty at all, it would be of embezzlement. However, the evidence before us does not show with that degree of certainty necessary to sustain the conviction that appellant was guilty of any offense. The evidence merely shows a mistaken identity on the part of appellant as to this bale of cotton, and if he took the same it was an honest mistake under the belief that it was his own bale of cotton. Because the .evidence does not support the conviction under the charge in the indictment, 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

BBOOKS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the theft of a bale of cotton, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years. The facts in this case show that appellant and his partner, Lawrence, were running a gin at the town of Heath, Bockwall County; that prosecuting witness brought cotton to the gin, which was ginned into a bale, and left in the custody of appellant and his partner in the gin lot. Appellant took charge of the cotton and sold it. Under this state of facts appellant would not be guilty of theft; but if guilty at all, it would be of embezzlement. However, the evidence before us does not show with that degree of certainty necessary to sustain the conviction that appellant was guilty of any offense. The evidence merely shows a mistaken identity on the part of appellant as to this bale of cotton, and if he took the same it was an honest mistake under the belief that it was his own bale of cotton. Because the .evidence does not support the conviction under the charge in the indictment, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 S.W. 308, 47 Tex. Crim. 65, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-state-texcrimapp-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack