Franco v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided May 7, 1958

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1958-05-07

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1976

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It is axiomatic that in theft cases there must be some proof of the value of the stolen property. Keenan v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 616 , 48 S.W.2d 264 , and Givens v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 277 , 158 S.W.2d 535 .””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Barnes v. State

Relies on 143 Tex. Crim. 277 - Givens v. State · 120 Tex. Crim. 33 - Pugh v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1958-05-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

¶1The offense is misdemeanor theft; the punishment, 40 days in jail.

¶2The record has now been perfected, and our two prior opinions dismissing this appeal are withdrawn.

¶3The information alleged that the appellant stole a radio of the value of $40. We have searched this record in vain and fail to find any evidence whatsoever as to the value of the radio in question. It is axiomatic that in theft cases there must be some proof of the value of the stolen property. Keenan v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 616, 48 S.W.2d 264, and Givens v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 277, 158 S.W.2d 535.

¶4In view of another trial, we express serious doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence to show that the property was found in the exclusive possession of the appellant.

¶5For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.