On a former appeal this case was reversed because the court failed to charge the law applicable to the facts adduced in behalf of the accused by way of defense. Vincent v. State, 9 Texas Ct. App. 303.
The indictment was in the ordinary form, and charged the defendant with the theft of four hogs, of the value
It is now too well settled in this State to admit of further controversy, that a conviction for receiving or concealing property, knowing it to have been stolen, may be had and will be sustained under an indictment charging' theft of the property; because theft includes all unlawful Requisitions of personal property punishable by the Penal Code. Code Crim. Proc. art. 714, subdiv. 6; Riley v. State, 32 Texas, 771; Counts v. State, 37 Texas, 593; Parchman v. State, 2 Texas Ct. App. 229; McCampbell v. State, 9 Texas Ct. App. 124; Martin v. State, 9 Texas Ct. App. 294; Clark’s Crim. Laws of Texas, p. 295, note 100. Viewed in the light of these decisions, the charge of the court was a full and correct exposition of the law applicable to a charge of receiving stolen property, and no error was committed in refusing the special instructions requested for defendant.
An objection is urged to the verdict of the jury that it is a general finding of guilty, without specifying the value of the property which they found had been stolen by defendant. The verdict finds defendant guilty and assesses his punishment at two. years’ confinement in the penitentiary. The jury were instructed by the charge of the
Another objection made to the charge of the court is •that it did not inform the jury of the period of limitation which would restrict their investigations in the case; in other words, that, if they found defendant guilty of a felony, they could only do so in case they believed the crime was committed within five years next before the presentment of the indictment. Code Crim. Proc. art. 198.
There was nothing in the evidence to raise the question of hmitation. The indictment charged the offense to have been committed on the 30th day of January, 1880; the evidence showed it was in fact committed about the 1st of February, 1880, and the indictment was filed on the 20th of February, 1880. Whilst it is true that the State, under a plea of not guilty, must establish a case that is not barred by limitation (State v. Carpenter, 74 N. C. 230), yet, if the evidence raises and could possibly raise no issue upon that subject, the court is not bound to charge upon it.
Nor did the court err in refusing to exclude from the jury the testimony of John Turner, who had turned State’s evidence. His testimony was both pertinent to
Affirmed.
does not concur in the portion of this opinion which decides that under a charge of theft an accused can be convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen.