In Jones the primary offense was proven by reliance on the presumption of guilt arising from unexplained possession of recently stolen property. The State argues that the evidence circumstantially shows the watches in appellant's possession were stolen in the extraneous burglary, citing Jones v. These are also sold by other stores, aren't they? These are the ones Goodyear has selected, and those are types that were in our case. But they could be bought at any place, is that correct?
I brought a catalogue along that has the type that we carry in it. Each assortment has different types Timex, and these are like the ones we carry. So there's no way of telling if any of those Timex watches were yours, is that right? A Timex watch can be bought at any place, any of fifty thousand places, at least, in the United States, wouldn't you think? Is there any difference between your Timex watches and Gibson's Timex watches and Eckard's Timex watches, and any other place that sells Timex watches?
Timex watch serial number lookup serial numbers#
I have no proof or no serial numbers there.
You don't know whether that's the one that was taken, do you? I don't have any serial numbers on Timex watches. Is that the ladies Timex watch that was taken? The State established only that the watches taken from appellant at the time of his arrest were "exactly the type that carr." The following was developed on cross-examination: In the instant case, however, the State has failed to establish that the appellant possessed the property taken in the subsequent burglary of the tire store. Under such circumstances the State has "clearly proved" that the possessor of such property is the perpetrator of the offense for the purposes of satisfying the rule of Eanes v. It is true that the recent, unexplained possession of property taken in a burglary is sufficient to sustain a conviction for burglary. State, Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 474, since the State did not prove appellant committed the extraneous offense.Įven though evidence of an extraneous offense may be relevant to the instant proceedings, such evidence should not be admitted unless the commission of the other crime is clearly proved and the accused is shown to be the perpetrator. On cross-examination, however, the manager admitted that several stores carry such Timex watches and that he could not positively identify the watch in question since "he had no proof or serial numbers."Īppellant argues that the introduction of this extraneous matter was error under Tomlinson v. The manager of the store testified that a watch recovered from appellant on the day of his arrest was "exactly" like one taken from the store. The State then, on rebuttal, established that on February 12, 1978, subsequent to the occurrence of the instant offense, the same Goodyear store was again burglarized.
He stated on cross-examination that at the time of his arrest on the 15th or 16th of February 1978, he was in possession of four watches.
Timex watch serial number lookup trial#
At trial appellant testified in his own behalf. A fine of $5000.00 was also imposed.Īppellant contends that the trial court erred in "receiving evidence that articles in possession were fruits of an extraneous offense subsequent to the case on trial." Appellant's conviction arose from the burglary of a Goodyear Tire Store on January 4, 1978. Punishment was assessed at confinement for ten years. This is an appeal from a conviction for theft. Atty., Belton, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.īefore ODOM, W. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, Panel No.