From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mcknight v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Mar 10, 1965
387 S.W.2d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 1965)

Opinion

No. 37954.

March 10, 1965.

Appeal from the 64th Judicial District Court, Hale County, James A Joy, J.

Royce E. Ball, Lubbock, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.


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

Our able state's attorney does not seek an affirmance of this conviction, and we agree that this cause must be reversed. The indictment alleged that appellant and one James Elmer Firestone stole a number of mechanical items, but no value is attributed to them either singularly or collectively. It is essential in all cases of theft, except in theft from the person and theft of certain animals such as horses, mules, cattle, etc., to allege the value of the property so that the indictment may show upon its face that the court has jurisdiction of the offense. This identical question was before the Court in Steel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 217 S.W.2d 857. See also Price v. State, 165 Tex.Crim. R., 308 S.W.2d 47.

The indictment being fatally defective, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the prosecution is dismissed.


Summaries of

Mcknight v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Mar 10, 1965
387 S.W.2d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 1965)
Case details for

Mcknight v. State

Case Details

Full title:Hershel McKNIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Mar 10, 1965

Citations

387 S.W.2d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 1965)

Citing Cases

Ramirez v. State

See id. Under Texas law, the value of the property taken is an essential element of the offense. See Simmons…

Ramirez v. State

See id. Under Texas law, the value of the property taken is an essential element of the offense. See Simmons…