Howell v. State
Howell v. State
Opinion of the Court
The offense is burglary; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
William H. Mann, an accomplice witness, testified that on the night of the 12th of April, 1936, Rufus Pearce, appellant, and the witness burglarized the barn of Howard Leake and took therefrom three sacks of cotton seed. Putting the seed in the back of the automobile appellant was driving, they returned to Shamrock.
Mr. Leake testified to the fact that his barn had been burglarized on the date in question and three sacks of Conrad cotton seed taken therefrom. These seed had been shipped to him from San Marcos, Texas, by H. Conrad. Each sack contained “inspection slips.” Mr. Leake testified further that on
Mr. DeWeese testified to the effect that he went to the Wilkinson place with Mr. Leake and examined some cotton seed, which he brought back to the courthouse.
Eva Chandler, a sister-in-law of appellant, testified that on the night of the 12th of April, 1936, she went to church in Shamrock with Mr. and Mrs. J. B. Wilkinson and appellant. They drove a “Nash two-seated car.” When they reached church appellant remained in the car and she did not see him again until after the services were over. In going home she rode on the back seat of the car. She testified: “There were three sacks of cotton seed in the back of the car which were not in there when I went into church, but after church was over I found them in there.” She testified further that when they reached home appellant and J. B. Wilkinson “emptied the cotton seed from the sacks they were in and put them in other sacks.” She did not know what they did with the sacks that were emptied. The cotton seed were then placed in the barn by appellant and Wilkinson. It appears from the testimony that appellant had been working for Mr. Leake until about a week before the burglary. During the time of his employment the cotton seed in question were in Mr. Leake’s barn.
Appeallant did not testify. However, he introduced several
We deem the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.