Loza v. State

Citations

• 1 Tex. Ct. App. 488

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice.—Notwithstanding that in all cases the juries are the exclusive judges of the facts and of the weight of the testimony, yet, under the statutory provisions that a new trial will be granted when the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, and that the judgment in a criminal case may, on appeal, be revised on the facts as well as the law, the responsibility is imposed on the district court in the first instance, and on the appellate court afterwards, of determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.</p> <p>2. Theft—Intent.—A felonious intent is an essential ingredient of the crime of theft, and must exist at the time of the taking. It is usually evidenced by clandestine or covert action, or by concealment or denial; but these are not the only tests of the intent.</p> <p>3. Same.—The felonious intent must be permanently to deprive the owner of the value of the property. An intent to trespass upon it, though wrongful, is not sufficient to make the taking a theft.</p> <p>4. Same—Charge of the Court.—When the facts raised a question as to whether the intent of the taking was felonious, or only tortious, the court should have instructed the jury upon the distinction between theft and trespass.</p> <p>6. Intent.—Drunkenness.—On his trial for theft the accused offered to prove that when he took the property he was so drunk as to be incapable of forming an intent to steal it. Held, that the proof was admissible for the purpose indicated, and it was error to exclude it on the score of irrelevancy.</p> <p>6. Theft—Evidence.—Note the facts of this case held insufficient to sustain a conviction of theft of a horse, and which, if they constituted a felonious talcing at all, made a case of robbery rather than theft.</p>