OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
,
AUSTIN
Ronorablo W. A. Morrison
Criminal District Attorney
Milam County
Cameron, Texas
Dear Slrl
ill Fn the oheok
and this ia done,
0 to personal prop-
S.W
noxwd, vhers does
from a saarch of the author-
Sims vs,,tho
9. W. 26 276;
brings m to (I.
and
State, 13 S.W.
vs. the State,
11 S. W. 2d 254; and
57
of Saiindlins
lies in th& county where the choc‘x 1.0actually
dollvorod to the ecll.or and title to the Prop-
.
erty passes, and not Xn the oounty in vhioh the
check uas written. "
lrfc havo further lnforzzt$on from you to ,tho off%ct that
the pey,-son y30 gave the chock was D filling ,stntion oporntor in
“0 ~~yy”y,c.l,..* .. -.. a- --..--.-.
.a-. - .-. .,
ilonorable W. A. Morrison, Page 2
A county vho had authorized hfs employee and agent to purchase
gasoline for him from the complaining witness, a refinery owner
of B county, and authorized his employee to fill in the amount
of the check. The check was givon for the gasoline in B coun-
ty and the gasoline was delivered in B county.
We quote from 12 Texas Jurisprudence, pego 444, as
follotrs:
‘The place where a crime is consummated
is often, in contemplation of lav, the place
whore %t, Is committed. For example, vhere
the offense consists In soiling an article
or commodity, the venue is ordinarily in the
oounty uhore delivery vas made, although pay-
ment therofor had previously been mede In
another county, or the terms of the sale
agreed upon plsevhere. And where the offense
ie consummated by purchasing and receiving
an article, the venue in ordinarily in the
county ln which the artlole was purchased
and dcllvered. 0 * *,‘I
In the cese of Sims VS. State, I.3 S. W. 653, cited
by‘you, appellant Sims was charged with sirlndllng; the false
representations trere made ln Gastland County but the property
orse) we.9 delivered to and was acquired by tho appellant
I:: iLovn county . We quota from the court’s opinion ns follovsl
“It is tho acquisition of tho property
that completes the offense. In this case,
no offense vas oommitted in Zastland County,
becnum the horse was not there acquired by
tho dcf enfdant. ”
The same principle of law is announced in tho case of
becbmd v. ‘Stato, 57 5. W, 813, cited by you.
The case of Robertson v. State, 132 5. II. (2d) 276,
cited by you, follows and cites the Sims and Dochard cases. In
the Robertson case the appellant Robertson in Tarrant County,
Texas telephoned fraudulent reprosontations to the prosecuting
vitncss In Harris County, Toxas, Mere the prosecuting vitnoss.
in rollance on the fraudulent reprosentatlono delivered some
rubber floor matting to a common carrier bus line for delivery
to Robertson. Robertson traotried and convicted in Tarrant
I“‘-
Honorable V. A. EI3rrison, Pago 3
county. The Texas Court of Crininal. Appoala rcvcrsed the con-
viction and held that venue Vas in Harris County vhare the de-
livery of the floor mhi;tIng VV&Smade since ths proparty vas
transforrod to Robertson by delivery into the poss3soion of
ths carrier.
It is our opinion that the venue of th'e offonse 1s
in B county vhero tho eaoollue was delivered.
Very truly yours
-, m JUL 17, 1041 ATTORNEYGBERAL OF !iZXAS
A
.A&
HJFrRS