Green v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Green v. State

256 S.W.2d 573, 158 Tex. Crim. 430, 1953 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1641

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 8, 1953

DocketNo. 26,290

StatusPublished

This text of 256 S.W.2d 573 (Green 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

Green v. State, 256 S.W.2d 573, 158 Tex. Crim. 430, 1953 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1641 (Tex. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the fraudulent disposition of mortgaged property; the punishment, two years.

The indictment alleged that the mortgaged property was sold to one Lavon Hindman.

The proof showed that the sale was made to one D. L. Owen, who gave his personal check in payment therefor, and that Hindman had nothing whatsoever to do with the transaction. It was shown that some loose type of partnership existed between Owen and Hindman, who were engaged in the used car business in which each bought and sold on his own and then divided the profits. It was not shown that Hindman ever exercised any care, control or management over the pickup truck purchased from the appellant. Owen himself later resold the truck to one Gaines.

The proof in this case would have sustained an allegation that the sale was made to Owen whether he purchased it individually or for a partnership, but will not support an allegation that the sale was made to Hindman.

Because of the fatal variance between the allegation and the proof, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the fraudulent disposition of mortgaged property; the punishment, two years.

The indictment alleged that the mortgaged property was sold to one Lavon Hindman.

The proof showed that the sale was made to one D. L. Owen, who gave his personal check in payment therefor, and that Hindman had nothing whatsoever to do with the transaction. It was shown that some loose type of partnership existed between Owen and Hindman, who were engaged in the used car business in which each bought and sold on his own and then divided the profits. It was not shown that Hindman ever exercised any care, control or management over the pickup truck purchased from the appellant. Owen himself later resold the truck to one Gaines.

The proof in this case would have sustained an allegation that the sale was made to Owen whether he purchased it individually or for a partnership, but will not support an allegation that the sale was made to Hindman.

Because of the fatal variance between the allegation and the proof, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 S.W.2d 573, 158 Tex. Crim. 430, 1953 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-state-texcrimapp-1953.