TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Abney v. State

Alice Abney v. State

Abney v. State, 332 S.W.2d 717 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 9, 1960
Docket
No. 31,623
Judges
Morrison
Citations
332 S.W.2d 717169 Tex. Crim. 1281960 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2853

Opinion of the Court — Morrison

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is felony theft; the punishment, 2 years.

Mrs. Maude Johnson, the mother of two small children and the wife of a Houston letter carrier, testified that she was ap *129 proached by appellant on the street of that city on the day charged in the indictment, that appellant pointed out a man on the sidewalk whom she said had found a billfold containing money, and the two women approached him. She stated that the man offered to share the contents of the billfold with appellant and her, but required that they put up earnest money which he might show his boss. She testified that appellant accompanied her to a parking lot where she got $48.00 from her automobile, to which she added $40.00 from her purse, and delivered the total to appellant, and that the parties separated. She stated that she waited some time for their promised return but that they did not come back, and that several weeks later she saw appellant in an automobile with a Florida license plate and reported the same to the police and later identified appellant in a lineup at the police station.

Appellant, testifying in her own behalf, stated that she resided in St. Louis, Missouri, had come to Houston with her “boy friend,” met Mrs. Johnson, and that it was Mrs. Johnson who had tried to pull the pigeon drop on her. She testified further that she had met Taft Spigner, her co-indictee, only a few minutes before she was arrested.

The jury chose to accept Mrs. Johnson’s version of the transaction, and we find the evidence sufficient to support their verdict.

No brief has been filed, and the informal bills of exception fail to reflect error.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1972: 119722026peak 1972 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ex Parte Clay479 S.W.2d 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972)

Most recent

  1. Ex Parte Clay479 S.W.2d 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972)

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