Saddler v. State

Citations

• 20 Tex. Ct. App. 195
• 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 34

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft— Case Distinguished.— See the opinion in extenso for the distinction between this case, and its companion, Jackson v. The State, ante, p. 190.</p> <p>2. Same — Evidence.— Any evidence from which the jury can infer the value of a stolen chattel is competent; as the testimony of the owner as to its value to him; the opinions of witnesses as to the value of like property, and what such property has realized at actual sales.</p> <p>3. Same — Charge of the Court.—With respect to the value of the property alleged to be stolen, it is the duty of the trial court to charge the jury upon the standard of value, which is the market value of the article if it have such value, and, if not, the amount it would cost to replace it. See the statement of the case for a charge upon the subject held correct.</p> <p>4. Practice — Evidence.—A correct rule of evidence is thus stated : “The admission of illegal evidence of an important fact, material and pertinent to the issue, and which is additional to other facts legally in evidence, is erroneous; and a conviction in such case will not be permitted to stand, however certain it may be that the jury would have found a verdict of guilty upon other sufficient evidence adduced on the trial.” This rule, however, does not apply in a case like the present, wherein the illegal evidence was neither important, material nor pertinent, and wherein the error of admitting the evidence was error without prejudice, and therefore not reversible error. See the opinion, and the statement of the case in Jackson v. The State, ante, p. 190, for the evidence referred to.</p>