Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS ,
AUSTIN
Ronorablo W. A. Morrison
Criminal District Attorney
Milam County
Cameron, Texas
Dear Slrl
ill Fn the oheok and this ia done, 0 to personal prop- vs. the State, 57 S.W. noxwd, vhers does 9. W. 26 276; and from a saarch of the author- Sims vs,,tho State, 13 S.W. 11 S. W. 2d 254; and . brings m to (I.
of Saiindlins in th& county where the choc‘x 1.0 actually lies dollvorod to the ecll.or and title to the Prop- erty passes, and not Xn the oounty in vhioh the check uas written. "
lrfc havo further lnforzzt$on from you to ,tho off%ct that the pey,-son y30 gave the chock was D filling ,stntion oporntor in
“0 ~~yy”y,c.l,..* . . -.. a- --..--.-.
.a-. - .-. .,
ilonorable W. A. Morrison, Page 2
A county vho had authorized hfs employee and agent to purchase
gasoline for him from the complaining witness, a refinery owner
of B county, and authorized his employee to fill in the amount
of the check. The check was givon for the gasoline in B coun-
ty and the gasoline was delivered in B county.
We quote from 12 Texas Jurisprudence, pego 444, as follotrs:
‘The place where a crime is consummated is often, in contemplation of lav, the place
whore %t, Is committed. For example, vhere
the offense consists In soiling an article
or commodity, the venue is ordinarily in the
oounty uhore delivery vas made, although pay-
ment therofor had previously been mede In
another county, or the terms of the sale And where the offense
agreed upon plsevhere.
ie consummated by purchasing and receiving
an article, the venue in ordinarily in the
county ln which the artlole was purchased 0 * *,‘I and dcllvered.
In the cese of Sims VS. State, I.3 S. W. 653, cited by‘you, appellant Sims was charged with sirlndllng; the false
representations trere made ln Gastland County but the property
orse) we.9 delivered to and was acquired by tho appellant
I:: iLovn county . We quota from the court’s opinion ns follovsl
“It is tho acquisition of tho property that completes the offense. In this case,
no offense vas oommitted in Zastland County,
becnum the horse was not there acquired by
tho dcf enfdant. ”
The same principle of law is announced in tho case of becbmd v. ‘Stato, 57 5. W, 813, cited by you. The case of Robertson v. State, 132 5. II. (2d) 276, the Sims and Dochard cases.
cited by you, follows and cites In
the Robertson case the appellant Robertson in Tarrant County,
Texas telephoned fraudulent reprosontations to the prosecuting In Harris County, Toxas, Mere the prosecuting vitnoss.
vitncss
in rollance on the fraudulent reprosentatlono delivered some
rubber floor matting to a common carrier bus line for delivery
to Robertson. Robertson trao tried and convicted in Tarrant
I“ ‘-
Honorable V. A. EI3rrison, Pago 3
county. The Texas Court of Crininal. Appoala rcvcrsed the con-
viction and held that venue Vas in Harris County vhare the de-
livery of the floor mhi;tIng VV&S made since ths proparty vas
transforrod to Robertson by delivery into the poss3soion of
ths carrier.
It is our opinion that the venue of th'e offonse 1s in B county vhero tho eaoollue was delivered.
Very truly yours ATTORNEY GBERAL OF !iZXAS A -, m JUL 17, 1041 .A&
HJFrRS