Alcorta v. State, 28080
| Decision Date | 30 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 28080,28080 |
| Citation | 294 S.W.2d 112 |
| Parties | Alvaro ALCORTA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
E. P. Lipscomb, San Antonio, for appellant.
Hubert W. Green, Jr., Dist. Atty., Roy R. Barrera, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for murder; the punishment, death.
Appellant admittedly killed his wife by stabbing and cutting her with a knife.
At the time of the homicide the deceased was seated in an automobile in front of her house, and was in company with one Natividad Castilleja, when appellant appeared with knife in hand and began to cut and stab her. He continued his assault though Castilleja started the car and attempted to throw him off, then kicked and threw rocks at him until appellant ran Castilleja away with his knife.
Appellant then took charge of Castilleja's car and drove away with the deceased, finally dragging her body from the car and depositing it in a creek in Atascosa County.
Thereafter he abandoned the car in that County and, after traveling to Laredo and to the Rio Grande Valley, returned several days later to San Antonio where he obtained and cashed his last pay check.
He was apprehended the following day as he was traveling north from San Antonio toward Boerne.
Appellant and the deceased were the parents of three children. They had been separated for several months.
Appellant gave as his reason for killing his wife the fact that he was drunk, saw his wife kissing Natividad, and knew she had been going with other men and was not taking proper care of the children. He testified to no lawful excuse or justification for the killing, but gave the reasons indicated as mitigating circumstances.
The State's evidence shows that appellant had been placed under peace bond on complaint of the deceased, and that earlier on the day of the homicide had made threats to kill her.
There is but one bill of exception, which is claimed to show ground for reversal. It is addressed to the introduction in evidence of 'Five (5) large photographs of the deceased wife of the defendant, such photographs taken in the nude and showing thirty two (32) stab wounds on the body of deceased.'
The bill of exception shows that such photographs were admitted over the objection that they were inflammatory and prejudicial and had no bearing on the case.
The trial court's qualification to the bill of exception certifies, however, that: 'said pictures were allowed to be introduced as bearing on the question of malice in the case and further as bearing on the question of the denial of the defendant that the wounds were on the body of the deceased in the number and as represented by the medical officer and as represented by the testimony of the officer witnesses in the case making a material fact issue on a material issue in the case, * * *.'
The record fully sustains the court's qualification. On the State's case in chief there was testimony to the effect that 32 cuts and stab wounds and bruises were found on the body.
Dr. David T. McMahon, Jr., Assistant Bexar County Health Officer, who made the autopsy after the body was embalmed, testified that there were 25 or 30 sewed lacerations over the face, neck, chest, thighs and legs, varying from one-half to four inches in length; lacerations over vital structures including two in the neck and several in the chest and over the heart and lungs, one of which punctured the heart and others the lungs, and one in the neck severed the left external jugular vein.
He further testified 'the skull was examined completely and minutely externally and there were no wounds on the skull, except those before mentioned on the face.'
Dr. McMahon expressed the opinion that death was from multiple causes, and though there were enough wounds in the vital structures that would have killed her, there were so many lacerations that had no vital structures been punctured she would have died anyway.
Appellant took the stand in his own behalf and, though admitting the stabbing and killing of his wife, questioned the accuracy of the testimony that had been offered by the State.
On direct examination he testified (Emphasis supplied.)
On cross-examination appellant testified:
Also on cross-examination appellant testified that the blood on his pants 'came from where the rock hit my wife in the head because her head was laying up here on the side (indicating).'
Upon rebuttal the photographs complained of were offered and admitted. They show the nude body of the deceased after it had been prepared for burial, and clearly illustrate the correctness of the testimony of the State's witnesses as to the knife wounds. The photographs also show the absence of a wound on the head such as would probably have resulted had she been struck by the large rock.
Authorities cited in the brief of both the State and the appellant are to the effect that photographs which, in the light of the whole case, aid the jury in arriving at the truth of the matter, serve to illustrate some point or solve some question, or shed light upon matters connected with the proper solution of the case are admissible, and it is only where the photographs serve no legitimate purpose and are calculated to seriously inflame the minds of the jurors and tend to cause them to return a more onerous verdict than the facts call for or justify are such photographs excluded. Gibson v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 582, 223 S.W.2d 625; Mouton v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 450, 235 S.W.2d 645; Cantrell v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 329, 242 S.W.2d 387; Griffin v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 27, 198 S.W.2d 587; Ray v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 12, 266 S.W.2d 124.
Under the rule stated and the evidence before him, the trial court did not err in admitting the photographs, and the bill of exception as qualified shows no error.
The judgment is affirmed.
It has long been the holding of this court that pictures of the body of deceased or of wounds to the body are not admissible in evidence and only become so when they tend to establish some disputed issue in the case. See Willis v. State, 49 Tex.Cr.R. 139, 90 S.W. 1100; Gibson v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 582, 223 S.W.2d 625; Mouton v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 450, 235 S.W.2d 645. It is the exception to the rule, and not the rule itself, that authorizes the introduction of such pictures.
Under the holding of my brethren, here, that rule no longer exists and is effectually overruled, for they approve the introduction in evidence of--not one, but five--pictures of the nude body of the deceased, in which numerous wounds are shown upon her body not tending in any way to solve any disputed issue in the case.
Now let us examine the facts:
In the presentation of its testimony, in chief, the state proved in detail, by some twelve or thirteen witnesses, the thirty-two stab wounds and their location on the body of the deceased.
There was not a line of testimony from any person directly attacking the testimony of those witnesses.
All the testimony showed that deceased came to her death by being stabbed by the appellant with a knife. No witness denied that fact, and appellant admitted it in his confession.
Testifying as a witness upon direct examination, appellant admitted killing the deceased, who was his wife, by stabbing her with a knife. At no time in his direct testimony did he challenge the testimony of the state's witnesses as to the fact that he killed deceased by stabbing her with a knife or as to the number and location of the wounds inflicted.
Appellant's testimony showed facts that might authorize...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Banks
...burns on the body, such as would have been inflicted had the shots been fired at close range during a struggle. In Alcorta v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 294 S.W.2d 112 (1956), where the defendant denied stabbing the victim thirty-two times as the State charged, and contended that one Natividad had......
-
Smith v. State
...Tex.Cr.App., 388 S.W.2d 690, reversed on other grounds, Burns v. Beto, 5th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals, 371 F.2d 598; Alcorta v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 294 S.W.2d 112. No error is Three of appellant's grounds of error relate to the action of the trial court in permitting the District Attorney, ......
-
Burns v. State, 37516
...cited us by appellant to illustrate his contention that the photographs were admitted to resolve a disputed fact issue. Alcorta v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 294 S.W.2d 112, also cited by appellant held that photographs were admissible to show the number and location of wounds, which was a resolut......
-
Pait v. State
...Burns v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 388 S.W.2d 690, reversed on other grounds; Burns v. Beto (5th Cir.), 371 F.2d 598; Alcorta v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 294 S.W.2d 112, 115, reversed on other grounds; 355 U.S. 28, 78 S.Ct. 103, 2 L.Ed.2d 9; conformed 308 S.W.2d 519; Wilkerson v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. ......