Womack v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Womack v. State

86 S.W. 1015, 48 Tex. Crim. 148, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 131

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 26, 1905

DocketNo. 2991.

StatusPublished

This text of 86 S.W. 1015 (Womack 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

Womack v. State, 86 S.W. 1015, 48 Tex. Crim. 148, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 131 (Tex. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of hog theft, and his punishment fixed at two years confinement in the penitentiary. In the view we take of this case, it is only necessary to consider one question to wit: The sufficiency of the evidence. Appellant took a pig of prosecutor Gibson at his special instance and request; and when the pig was seen in the pen of appellant he stated to prosecutor that he might have it, if he desired, and it was his pig. All the facts show there was no apparent intent to steal the pig. There must be a felonious intent in order to constitute theft. There is a total absence of such intent here. If the pig belonged to prosecutor, and this fact is seriously controverted by the evidence, then at most it would have only been embezzlement; but we do not think the evidence supports this. In any event, we hold that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict of the jury, and 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

BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of hog theft, and his punishment fixed at two years confinement in the penitentiary. In the view we take of this case, it is only necessary to consider one question to wit: The sufficiency of the evidence. Appellant took a pig of prosecutor Gibson at his special instance and request; and when the pig was seen in the pen of appellant he stated to prosecutor that he might have it, if he desired, and it was his pig. All the facts show there was no apparent intent to steal the pig. There must be a felonious intent in order to constitute theft. There is a total absence of such intent here. If the pig belonged to prosecutor, and this fact is seriously controverted by the evidence, then at most it would have only been embezzlement; but we do not think the evidence supports this. In any event, we hold that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict of the jury, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 S.W. 1015, 48 Tex. Crim. 148, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/womack-v-state-texcrimapp-1905.