Hannahan v. State

Citations

• 7 Tex. Ct. App. 664

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft — Ownership—Variance. — Before the Revised Codes took effect, an indictment charged theft of a steer, the property of C. The proof showed that the animal was the joint property of 0. and another, and not in the actual possession and control of either of them when stolen. Held, that the variance between the allegation and the proof is fatal to the conviction.</p> <p>2. Same — Charge of the Court.—In the state of case above indicated, notwithstanding the Revised Codes were in effect when the trial was had, it was error to give in charge to the jury art. 426 of the Code of Procedure, which has changed the previous law on this subject, and allows an indictment for the theft of property owned in common or jointly by two or more persons to allege the ownership in all or either of them. A retroactive application of this provision makes it ex post facto.</p> <p>3. Accomplice Testimony.—An accomplice witness cannot corroborate his own testimony. See an instruction likely to mislead the jury on this subject.</p> <p>4. Cumulative Sentences. — The Revised Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 800, provides that cumulative terms in the penitentiary, adjudged at the same term of court, shall be so tacked that each subsequent term shall begin at the expiration of the preceding one. But the application of this provision to offences committed prior to the Revised Codes is error; because, being more onerous than the preexisting law, it would be ex post facto if enforced for antecedent offences.</p>