Fennell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Fennell v. State

153 S.W. 127, 68 Tex. Crim. 366, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 7

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 8, 1913

DocketNo. 2190.

StatusPublished

This text of 153 S.W. 127 (Fennell 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

Fennell v. State, 153 S.W. 127, 68 Tex. Crim. 366, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 7 (Tex. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

HARPER, Judge.

— Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of theft, and his punishment assessed at five years confinement in the State penitentiary.

The evidence amply supports the verdict of the jury, and there is no merit in the contention that it is insufficient, and it was not necessary for the court to charge on explanation of the possession of the recently stolen property. The first explanation given was a confession of his guilt, which confession was properly admitted in evidence. The facts not only would justify the finding that it was freely and voluntarily made, but a portion of the stolen property was found at the place stated by appellant in his confession. "While it is true that after having confessed to himself stealing the property, on the trial of the case defendant testified he had purchased the property from another person, whose name he could not recall, but whom he stated he would know if he should see him again. The court instructed the jury that if defendant purchased the property, or the jury had a reasonable doubt of that fact, to acquit him. This fully presented his defense, and the motion for a new trial points out no error.

The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed. ■

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

HARPER, Judge.

— Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of theft, and his punishment assessed at five years confinement in the State penitentiary.

The evidence amply supports the verdict of the jury, and there is no merit in the contention that it is insufficient, and it was not necessary for the court to charge on explanation of the possession of the recently stolen property. The first explanation given was a confession of his guilt, which confession was properly admitted in evidence. The facts not only would justify the finding that it was freely and voluntarily made, but a portion of the stolen property was found at the place stated by appellant in his confession. "While it is true that after having confessed to himself stealing the property, on the trial of the case defendant testified he had purchased the property from another person, whose name he could not recall, but whom he stated he would know if he should see him again. The court instructed the jury that if defendant purchased the property, or the jury had a reasonable doubt of that fact, to acquit him. This fully presented his defense, and the motion for a new trial points out no error.

The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.W. 127, 68 Tex. Crim. 366, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fennell-v-state-texcrimapp-1913.