Scott v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Scott v. State

148 S.W.2d 418, 141 Tex. Crim. 296, 1941 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 138

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 5, 1941

DocketNo. 21470.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 148 S.W.2d 418 (Scott 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

Scott v. State, 148 S.W.2d 418, 141 Tex. Crim. 296, 1941 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 138 (Tex. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was given two years in the penitentiary on a charge of receiving and concealing stolen property, from which he appeals.

The indictment properly alleges the theft of $250.00 by another party and the receipt and concealing of same by appellant. The only evidence relied upon to support the conviction is the testimony of Bill Maddox, a policeman, who relates that appellant told him that he had received $250.00 of the money and said he hid it.

*297 By an appropriate bill of exception the defendant attacks the sufficiency of this evidence to support a conviction on the ground that the State has failed to show that the money which appellant admitted he received was acquired by theft. The corpus delicti may not be established by the extra judicial confession of the appellant alone, but may only be utilized to aid other proper evidence to establish it. (Franklin v. State, 144 S. W. (2d) 581, and J. T. Patterson v. State, being cause No. 21,362 on the docket of this court and not yet reported.) (140 Texas Crim. Rep. 661).

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was given two years in the penitentiary on a charge of receiving and concealing stolen property, from which he appeals.

The indictment properly alleges the theft of $250.00 by another party and the receipt and concealing of same by appellant. The only evidence relied upon to support the conviction is the testimony of Bill Maddox, a policeman, who relates that appellant told him that he had received $250.00 of the money and said he hid it.

*297 By an appropriate bill of exception the defendant attacks the sufficiency of this evidence to support a conviction on the ground that the State has failed to show that the money which appellant admitted he received was acquired by theft. The corpus delicti may not be established by the extra judicial confession of the appellant alone, but may only be utilized to aid other proper evidence to establish it. (Franklin v. State, 144 S. W. (2d) 581, and J. T. Patterson v. State, being cause No. 21,362 on the docket of this court and not yet reported.) (140 Texas Crim. Rep. 661).

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 S.W.2d 418, 141 Tex. Crim. 296, 1941 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-state-texcrimapp-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack