Mayzone v. State

Appellant was charged with theft from the person, in that he committed the theft by snatching the property so suddenly as not to allow time for resistance.

The state’s theory was that appellant and Till Deckerd were together and engaged McReynolds in conversation with reference to selling McReynolds a $10 gold piece, which seems to have been used by Deckerd as a watch charm. They offered to sell it to McReynolds for $10. He stepped in a store, got the money, and came out on the sidewalk where appellant and Deckerd were. While talking, appellant jerked the money from McReynolds and ran away.…