Ball v. State
| Decision Date | 11 April 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 28217,28217 |
| Citation | Ball v. State, 163 Tex.Crim. 214, 289 S.W.2d 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1956) |
| Parties | Robert Edward BALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Harris E. Lofthus, Amarillo, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
Appellant was convicted of fondling a child under Art. 535d, Vernon's Ann.P.C., and his punishment was assessed at 25 years in the penitentiary.
The state's witness, Gloria Lozano, testified that she was eleven years of age; that on May 13, 1954, she went to spend the night with Peggy Hornbeck, age 10, whose mother was not at home that night; and that the appellant came to Peggy's house and after a short time they went in appellant's car, all riding in the front seat, to a drive-in picture show. She further testified that after they got some popcorn Peggy was sitting on appellant's lap and she was sitting by the door; that he kept moving over toward her and he soon placed his arm around her, raised up her dress and slip, and pulled down her panties, and put his hand on her leg and on her privates; and that she and Peggy soon went to the concession stand where she talked with the manager who called the officers.
The manager of the drive-in picture show testified that on May 13, 1954, Gloria Lozano 'somewhere between eight and nine o'clock--the little girl came in the concession stand, and she was nervous and crying, and said the man in the car wouldn't leave her alone', and that he then called the officers.
Appellant did not testify but introduced in evidence the second paragraph of a written statement made to the district attorney on May 17, 1954, which reads as follows:
After appellant introduced in evidence the second paragraph in said statement, the state offered in evidence the remainder of said written statement which is Paragraph No. 1. Appellant objected thereto on the ground that 'it tends to prejudice the defendant and is an attempt to convict him by the introduction of evidence of an extraneous offense; we say it is absolutely immaterial to this prosecution and highly prejudicial to this defendant.' The court stated that it would be admitted for 'the limited purpose as bearing on intent', and to which appellant excepted.
The portion of said written statement introduced by the state reads:
Appellant strenuously insists that the trial court erred in permitting the state to introduce in evidence Paragraph 1 of appellant's written statement made to the district attorney on May 17, 1954, over his objection that 'it tends to prejudice the defendant and is an attempt to convict him by the introduction of evidence of an extraneous offense' and is immaterial and highly prejudicial.
The facts related in Paragraph 1 of appellant's statement show his fondling of the sexual parts of Peggy Hornbeck while visiting Peggy's home, in the absence of her mother, on the evening of May 1, 1954, and his conduct at that time reveals that such acts were for the purpose of satisfying his lust or immoral sexual emotions.
The testimony shows that he returned to the home of Peggy Hornbeck on May 13, 1954, when Peggy's mother was away from home and Gloria Lozano had come to spend the night, that they went in his car to a drive-in picture show, and while Peggy was sitting in his lap that he placed his hand on the leg and privates of Gloria.
In Jones v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 2, 238 S.W.2d 529, 530, in passing upon the childfondling statute where it is...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Boutwell v. State
...if they fall into one of the proper "exceptions" to the "general rule" barring their admission. See and cf. Ball v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 214, 289 S.W.2d 926 (Tex.Cr.App.1956) (correct as to intent); Rangel v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 620, 352 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Cr.App.1961) (intent); Blum v. State......
-
Lujan v. State
...further held that the definition of "genitals" includes the vulva which immediately surrounds the vagina. Citing Ball v. State, 163 Tex.Crim. 214, 289 S.W.2d 926 (1956) and Pendell v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 119, 253 S.W.2d 426 (1952). "Vulva" is defined as the external parts of the female gen......
-
McKenzie v. State
...cases deciding sufficiency issues under it which held "lascivious intent can be inferred from the defendant's conduct," 15 it reads Ball v. State, supra, differently than appellant, and argues that the "scenario in the instant case lends itself to a similar interpretation." 16 While the spe......
-
Garza v. State
...The court held this evidence admissible to rebut appellant's defensive theories. 418 S.W.2d at 528. Likewise, in Ball v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 214, 289 S.W.2d 926 (1956), a prosecution for fondling a child, the court held that after appellant offered a written statement denying the fondling ......