Fellers v. State

9 Citing cases

  1. Raley v. State

    548 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)   Cited 11 times
    In Raley v. State, 548 S.W.2d 33 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977), the court indicated that a witness' earlier testimony in a case from a preliminary hearing or a former trial was admissible if the witness was unavailable and "the proper predicate be laid for its admission."

    Furthermore, we cannot hold that the introduction of the transcript constituted harmless error under the rule set out in Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969). In Fellers v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 307, 136 S.W.2d 217 (Tex.Cr.App.1940), this Court stated, "In order to sustain a prosecution for embezzlement against an agent of a private person or corporation, four distinct propositions of fact must be established in evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. * * * 1. That the defendant was the agent of the person or corporation as alleged, and by the terms of his employment was charged with the duty of receiving the money of his principal. 2.

  2. Rose v. State

    427 S.W.2d 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968)   Cited 34 times

    The record is clear that during the afternoon preceding the day when the property was taken, appellant had been relieved of his position of foreman in charge of the compressor repair department, and Doyle Yancey had taken his place, so when the property was taken, the same was not in his custody so as to make the taking embezzlement instead of theft. See Grice v. State, 88 Tex.Crim. R., 225 S.W. 172; Watkins v. State, 84 Tex.Crim. R., 207 S.W. 926; and Fellers v. State, 138 Tex.Crim. R., 136 S.W.2d 217. Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

  3. Villarreal v. State

    385 S.W.2d 248 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964)   Cited 1 times

    Suffice it to say that at the time appellant received the Garces money the Lumber Company had no legal right to claim it because the Company was not bound on the contract. In Fellers v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 307, 136 S.W.2d 217, Judge Graves set forth the four well known propositions necessary to sustain a conviction for embezzlement and concluded with this rule: 'It is also fundamental that in cases of embezzlement or theft title must be at the time the offense is committed in the injured person.' Title to the Garces down payment was not in the Lumber Company on the day appellant received and appropriated it because the Lumber Company had entered into no contract with Garces.

  4. Seay v. State

    172 Tex. Crim. 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 1962)   Cited 2 times

    "(4) the fraudulent conversion or misapplication of the property by the defendant." Such four enumerated requirements are the essential elements of the offense of embezzlement. 21 Tex.Jur.2d, par. 25, p. 613-614; Fellers v. State, 138 Tex.Crim. R., 136 S.W.2d 217. In applying the law to the facts, the court required the jury to find among other things, before convicting appellant, that appellant did fraudulently embezzle, misapply and convert to his own use the money belonging to the Southern Enterprise Corporation.

  5. Parnell v. State

    339 S.W.2d 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 1959)   Cited 10 times
    In Parnell v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 30, 339 S.W.2d 49 (1959), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 828, 81 S.Ct. 66, 5 L.Ed.2d 55 (1960), an embezzlement case where a crucial element is that the money was taken without the consent of the owner, this court found that a majority on a board of directors of a corporation could be guilty of embezzling corporate funds.

    There was no allegation in the indictment that appellant acted with any other person or persons in committing the alleged embezzlement. In keeping with the mandate of Art. 1534, P.C., the trial court instructed the jury that four elements were necessary to establish the crime of embezzling (see, also, Fellers v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 307, 136 S.W.2d 217): '1. That the defendant was the agent of the person or corporation, as alleged, and by the terms of his employment was charged with the duty of receiving the money of his principal.

  6. Cage v. State

    320 S.W.2d 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 1958)   Cited 29 times
    In Cage v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 355, 320 S.W.2d 364, this Court held the objection that the charge did 'not meet the requirements of the law regarding extraneous transactions' was not sufficient.

    Such is the construction this court and its predecessors have placed upon the statute for nearly a hundred years. See Note 1 of Art. 1534, Vernon's Ann.P.C., for attesting authorities, including the case of Fellers v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 307, 136 S.W.2d 217. In the indictment the state charged that appellant was guilty of embezzlement under the following allegation that he

  7. Esquivel v. Garcia

    No. 08-16-00154-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 26, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Embezzlement requires proof that (1) the defendant was the agent of the person or corporation harmed and was charged with the duty of receiving money for the principal, (2) the defendant received money belonging to the principal in the course of employment, and (3) the defendant embezzled, misapplied, or converted it to her own use. Saden v. Smith, 415 S.W.3d 450, 471 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied), citing Fellers v. State, 138 Tex.Crim. 307, 308, 136 S.W.2d 217, 218 (Tex.Crim.App. 1940) and TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.45 (West 2016)(misapplication of fiduciary property). G&R established that Esquivel was its agent, and that she had the duty of receiving client payments on its behalf.

  8. People v. Berry

    459 P.3d 578 (Colo. App. 2017)   Cited 6 times

    The phrase "property of the state" tends to indicate that property subject to the statute is property belonging to the state. See United States v. Mason , 218 U.S. 517, 521, 531, 31 S.Ct. 28, 54 L.Ed. 1133 (1910) (applying federal statutes; court clerk not guilty of embezzling "public moneys" or "money or other property of the United States" because the funds received never "belong[ed] to" the United States) (citation omitted); Fellers v. State , 138 Tex.Crim. 307, 136 S.W.2d 217, 217-18 (1940) (embezzlement statute prohibiting an agent from embezzling "property of" a principal or employer requires proof that the agent received property belonging to the principal). And the concept of "belonging to" would, in turn, seem to equate to ownership.

  9. Saden v. Smith

    415 S.W.3d 450 (Tex. App. 2013)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that trial court was authorized to permit shareholder of closely held corporation to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty owed to corporation when shareholder met statutory requirements

    ”). Embezzlement requires proof that (1) the defendant was the agent of the person or corporation alleged to have been harmed and was charged with the duty of receiving money of his principal, (2) he received money belonging to his principal in the course of his employment, and (3) that he embezzled, misapplied, or converted it to his own use. Fellers v. State, 138 Tex.Crim. 307, 308, 136 S.W.2d 217, 218 (Tex.Crim.App.1940); seeTex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.45 (West 2011) (misapplication of fiduciary property or property of financial institution).