Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

412 S.W.2d 911

Lacy v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided March 22, 1966

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1966-03-22

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 1974

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““acting together * * * did then and there unlawfully, wilfully and mischievously, and without the consent of the owner thereof, Joe F. Elston injure certain property, to-wit, 3 gallons of milk value of $1.18 each, 10 gallons of ice cream value of $.99 each etc. * * * by then and there opening containers of said property, throwing scattering and intermingling the contents thereof which said injury to said property was then and there of the value of over $50.00 and the said Matthew Donald Johnson and Marion Ernest McMillan, acting together did then and there wilfully and mischievously injure and destroy such property without the consent of the aforesaid owner thereof * * (emphasis added)”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Barber v. State, Johnson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1966-03-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 OPINION

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

¶2 The offense is injuring property belonging to another (Art. 1350, Sec. 1(a) Vernon’s Ann.P.C.); the punishment, 2 years.

¶3 The record approved by the trial court reflects no statement of the evidence adduced and no brief was filed in the trial court by appellant.

¶4 The indictment was attacked in the trial court as void by motion to quash and again by motion in arrest of judgment. The motions were overruled and exception taken.

¶5 As read to the jury, the indictment alleged that appellant did wilfully and mischievously and without the consent of the owner “injure and destroy certain property, to wit, drapes, windows, gas light, window air conditioners, rugs, and walls” by “cutting, tearing, ripping, and breaking the same and defecating upon the said rugs, in-' flicting damage and injury to the same of the value of over $50.00.”

¶6 The quoted portion of the indictment sufficiently alleged that the property described was injured. It was not necessary that the extent of the injury to each article of property be alleged.

¶7 The court’s charge authorized the jury to convict if they found that appellant wil-fully injured drapes and rugs without the consent of the owner, the extent of the injury inflicted being of the value of $50.-00 or more.

¶8 The indictment is sufficient though it does not allege the value or extent of the damages to the drapes and rugs separately.

¶9 The judgment is affirmed.

/412/sw2d/911 · .json · Public domain