Routon v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Routon v. State

278 S.W. 1117, 102 Tex. Crim. 412, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1160

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 9, 1925

DocketNo. 9650.

StatusPublished

This text of 278 S.W. 1117 (Routon 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

Routon v. State, 278 S.W. 1117, 102 Tex. Crim. 412, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1160 (Tex. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge.

From conviction in Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas- County of the offense of theft, with punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary, this appeal is taken.

Appellant was charged with theft of an automobile of the value of $400.00. No exceptions were taken upon the trial to the indictment, the charge of the court or to the reception or rejection of any evidence.

The testimony shows that on the 22nd day of January,. 1925, a Ford car was rented to appellant. Something like a week after this occurrence, said car was recovered in Austin, *413 Texas. Officers from Austin testified that they found appellant in possession of the car in that city; that its old numbers had been taken off and new numbers substituted. When arrested appellant first denied any knowledge of the car. Appellant testified in his own behalf and stated that he had no knowledge of the transaction in regard to renting the car. We are unable to find anything in the record justifying a disturbance of the verdict of the jury, and the judgment will accordingly be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

From conviction in Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas- County of the offense of theft, with punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary, this appeal is taken.

Appellant was charged with theft of an automobile of the value of $400.00. No exceptions were taken upon the trial to the indictment, the charge of the court or to the reception or rejection of any evidence.

The testimony shows that on the 22nd day of January,. 1925, a Ford car was rented to appellant. Something like a week after this occurrence, said car was recovered in Austin, *413 Texas. Officers from Austin testified that they found appellant in possession of the car in that city; that its old numbers had been taken off and new numbers substituted. When arrested appellant first denied any knowledge of the car. Appellant testified in his own behalf and stated that he had no knowledge of the transaction in regard to renting the car. We are unable to find anything in the record justifying a disturbance of the verdict of the jury, and the judgment will accordingly be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 S.W. 1117, 102 Tex. Crim. 412, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/routon-v-state-texcrimapp-1925.