Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

SYLVESTER SHAFFER v. THE STATE.

1. — Burglary — Evidence — "Nighttime Burglary."

In prosecution under indictment charging ordinary burglary, conviction could not be sustained, where the proof showed a "nighttime burglary" of a private residence, since the offense of burglary of a private residence at night is a separate and distinct offense from burglary committed in the daytime by breaking and entering a private residence.

2. — Burglary — Theft.

A defendant who had the consent of injured person to enter the house alleged to have been burglarized would only be guilty of ordinary "theft" and not of burglary.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for burglary. The punishment assessed is confinement in the State penitentiary for a term of two years.

The indictment charged an ordinary burglary under Art. 1390 P. C. The facts clearly show that the premises burgalrized were the private residence of the injured person and that the entry was made at night. Under such state of facts, the offense is night time burglary of a private residence under Art. 1391, P. C. and is not an offense under Art. 1390 P. C. Burglary of of a private residence at night time is a separate and distinct offense from burglary committed in the daytime by breaking and entering a private residence. The punishment prescribed for burglary of a private residence at night time is by confinement in the penitentiary for a term of years not less than five. See Branch's Ann. P. C. Sec. 2354; Rodgers v. State, 59 Tex. Crim. 146; Alinis v. State, 63 Tex.Crim. Rep.; 139 S.W. 986; Martinus v. State, 47 Tex.Crim. Rep.; 84 S.W. 831; Mays v. State, 50 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Crawford v. State, 78 S.W.2d , 623.

The testimony relative to the consent of Bowers for appellant to enter the house is rather equivocal and unsatisfactory. If appellant had the consent of Bowers to enter the house, he would only be guilty of ordinary theft. However, upon another trial, the testimony may be more clearly developed.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SHAFFER v. STATE
(Oct 18, 1939)