*1 the conviction. to sustain evidence is sufficient affirmed. Opinion by approved the Court.
on
DAVIDSON, contention Appellant presses correctness of his us the and that we do warrant his conviction that the facts not reaching contrary conclusion. showing that at the It is insisted that there is no evidence purse appropriating time he found the intention though guilty of even contents and that he could not be theft its appropriate appro- and did formed intent he thereafter priate currency purse. the owner The fact that made no to ascertain effort cards, though li- purse, “driver’s” it contained business cense, showing owner, membership name of the cards purse attempted to have the and the further destroyed fact that the trial conclusion authorized court’s property. had the fraudulent intent steal the reached conclusion was remain convinced that correct We originally. rehearing is overruled.
Accordingly, appellant’s motion for Opinion approved the court. Bishop v. State
Wanda 26,994. 1954 26, June Rehearing Denied. June *2 Brown, by Lubbock, Burks and Burks, Button appel- S. lant.
Wesley Dice, Attorney, Austin, State’s for the state. BELCHER, Judge.
Appellant charged jointly by complaint and information “acting together” Bishop with Orus in unlawful sale dry granted and, of upon ain area. Motion for severance was by jury, appellant
trial punishment her convicted and at a was assessed fine of $350. accompanies
No statement of facts the record. By Exception appellant challenges Bill of No. the sufficien- cy guilt especially the evidence to show the identity person to establish the as sold who question. in exception fails to it state that contains all upon evidence adduced the trial or all the evidence introduced jury identity before as to the of the accused as the question. sold a presumption There is regularity conviction, prevail favor of the will which facts, appeal in the absence of a unless the bill states that it contains all the evidence on thereby. Bryant State, raised Robinson v. 37 Texas Cr. R. 39 S.W. 185; Pilgrim
Williams v.
Cr. R.
This bill of certifies that “the evidence alleged acting together case Bishop of Wanda Bishop Yeager,” Orus is contained in the of Leon being part which is set part. out and summarized in they beyond that if rea- acting together sonable Bishop Bishop doubt that “Wanda with Orus * * * * * * unlawfully did whiskey,” sell to Leon then authorized to convict *3 facts, exception, as certified in the bills of show that purchaser dealt, through
the glass, with a woman. During the sale, conversation that led to the a man’s voice was say right.” heard to “That is all Upon entering building, appellant the and her husband were having near the the in his the $10 purchaser bill the lady. slot as directed There was no man Bishop, appellant’s there other than Orus Appellant’s voice, according of the purchaser was to him “the same voice he heard when he was porch.” on the
Except children, for two the house elderly an was woman whose voice did not sound like the voice he had heard. In the containing absence of a of facts all of the agree we cannot that the bills of or show are present sufficient insufficiency of the evi- dence to sustain the conviction or to show reversible error charge.
the court’s In Woods v. 114 S.W. 2d “To warrant reversal conviction facts, absence of a statement of must show that all the evidence adduced before the is embraced 4 bill.” also Texas Jur. Jackson v. See Sec. R. Gallaher Cr. 2d 382. appear together acting The husband and wife to have been in what done on the occasion and were therefore accountable jury, part, as follows: “You are guilt. further that an instructed information is no evidence of merely pleadings It crime, prosecution is of the state in you will not consider the information the case as guilt.” Appellant objected portion evidence of merely pleadings reads “It is prosecution of the state in the crime,” weight because same on the and is comment upon the evidence. opinion We are that when considered with remain- der paragraph, portion complained not reasona- bly injure rights calculated to
Finding error, no reversible the trial court is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the Court.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING MORRISON,
We have now been furnished with a statement ample filed with the trial court in time. *4 proceed We shall to examine Bill No. 1 light appellant’s contentions. being misdemeanor, a and her husband properly jointly charged were From the Yeager it is shown that Officer to the went home husband, rang and her lady’s a the bell at and voice said, in”; facing one-way “Come that he then found himself a mirror; said, a lady’s you, voice can we do for sir?” “What replied, DeLuxe, to please”; “I pint would like a of Bourbon lady’s that the and voice then asked him name for his whom spoke up he worked. At that moment a man’s voice said, right,” said, “Drop “That is all and the woman $4.00 slot, please.” Yeager slot, a a few $10.00 change whiskey moments later the and his delivered to through this, Yeager him mobile, the slot. After walked out to auto- pretended where he raised the hood and have trouble get give plenty for the other there order to of time officers “in with the war- other officers came the search warrant.” The with rant, house, all where of them entered two, than appellant and her near the door. Other these knitting lady room and two children. there was an old back found, Upon premises, no further search of money paid found in the which was for the but appellant’s It shown that identified the voice of the witness lady talked to him as that present. and excluded voices of the adults Rep. 156, In Collins v. approval Encyclopedia
this court from Evidence as follows: competent
“Voice ais means identification if the witness any previous acquaintance with the It identified. person’s sufficient that has heard once the witness such voice but previous question.” to the time in Massey
In 880, (page 49, volume) this “Whether he heard telephone voice for the first time in personal conversation or personal contact is immaterial. The contact which a telephone becomes the basis identification may subsequent prior voice be telephone as well as conver- sation.” Huskey
In Rep. 159 Texas Cr. 266 S.W. 2d we affirmed conviction based mirror transac- here, tion such money as we have before us in that but case the through passed recovered, the door was not as it was in the case at bar.
Remaining properly disposed convinced that we of this case originally, rehearing is overruled. No further motions for will be entertained.