TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Falcone v. State

Vincent Falcone v. the State

Falcone v. State, 206 S.W. 845 (Tex. Crim. App. 1918)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 27, 1918
Docket
No. 5211.
Judges
Davidson
Citations
206 S.W. 84584 Tex. Crim. 2791918 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 382
Headnotes
Receiving Stolen Property—Sufficiency of the Evidence. Where, upon trial of receiving stolen property, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, there was no reversible error.
Summary
The opinion states the case.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Davidson

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property, his punishment being assessed at four years confinement in the penitentiary.

The evidence discloses that Otto Best, Roberta Armstrong and Alberta Robinson burglarized a house belonging to Mrs. Hannah Melasky and took from it valuable jewelry alleged in the indictment to be worth $675, and that after this was done appellant received it from Prank Kvle and concealed it. The evidence is sufficient to support the finding of the jury that the property was taken from Mrs. Hannah Melasky’s house, and received and' turned over to Kyle, who in turn passed it to appellant and received money as a consideration for the reception of this jewelry. The jewelry stolen was mainly diamonds in one form or another. • , It is contended that appellant at the time he received it did not know it was stolen. Such was appellant’s testimony, he being the only witness who testified in his own behalf. But the evidence shows that after he received the property, although under his testimony he may not' have known it was stolen at the time he received it, he concealed it, knowing that fact. We are of opinion that this sufficiently makes out a case to justify the verdict of the jury. There are no bills of exception to any ruling or action of the court, either as to the admission or rejection of testimony or charges given. As this record presents the matter we are of opinion that the State has sufficiently made out a case to justify the conviction The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1936: 11944: 11977: 119362026peak 1936 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hardeman v. State552 S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)
  2. S.E. McLeroy v. State97 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 1936)
  3. Thomason v. State183 S.W.2d 973 (Tex. Crim. App. 1944)

Most recent

  1. Hardeman v. State552 S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)
  2. Thomason v. State183 S.W.2d 973 (Tex. Crim. App. 1944)
  3. S.E. McLeroy v. State97 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 1936)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list