Batiste v. State, 43505
| Decision Date | 10 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 43505,43505 |
| Parties | Phillip Morris BATISTE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Paul Chitwood, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., John B. Tolle, Harry J. Schulz, Jr., W. T. Westmoreland, Jr., Edgar A. Mason, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is robbery by assault; the punishment, ten (10) years.
Appellant's first ground of error relates to the legality of his arrest and a search of his person. Officer Williams testified that while on patrol on the night in question at 12:55 a.m., and while driving down an alley without lights, he observed two men behind a closed 'business house;' when he illuminated his lights, the two men ran.
He gave chase, apprehended the appellant and called for 'a cover squad.' Williams searched appellant for weapons and found a long knife in appellant's pocket. Officer Coslin arrived and guarded appellant in the squad car while Williams searched the area. During this time, Coslin heard a police radio message broadcasting the details of a robbery which had taken place nearby and giving the details of what had been taken. While seated in the patrol car, Coslin observed the appellant, who was handcuffed, trying to get into his own left hand pants pocket. Coslin recovered from the appellant's pocket a pair of eyeglasses, which were later identified by their owner, the victim of the robbery, as being those taken away from him by the robber.
Appellant challenges the legality of the search of his person. We need not pass upon the legality of this search because appellant testified and gave his version of the arrest and asserted that the arresting officer put the glasses on his 'person.' In Young v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 444, we held that an accused could not be heard to object to a search where he testified about the guns being in his automobile.
Appellant next contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.
Testimony of the complaining witness shows that, as he was walking down a street in Dallas at approximately 12:50 a.m., two Negro men came up to him, each holding a knife at his throat, and threatened to kill him if he did not cooperate with them. They then removed his eyeglasses and took a transistor radio and his wallet from him. After forcing the complainant to remove his pants, they walked away from him. As they were walking away, the complainant heard one of them say, 'Come on, the cops,' and he observed that the men then began to run. The complainant was unable to identify either of his assailants, as his vision was very poor without his glasses.
The court charged the jury on circumstantial evidence.
In Edmonds v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 407 S.W.2d 783, this Court reiterated the rule that 'proof of appellant's unexplained possession of the property recently stolen from the house, together with proof that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State
...come from the Piccadilly Cafeteria, thus waiving his objection to the police officer's testimony to those same facts.); Batiste v. State, 464 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) (Defendant waived challenge to illegality of search producing eyeglasses introduced into evidence where on direct examin......
-
Ex parte Johnson
...Anderson v. State, 504 S.W.2d 507 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Castaneda v. State, 491 S.W.2d 885 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Batiste v. State, 464 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); and Cedargreen v. State, 432 S.W.2d 524 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). Thus, when a jury rendered a verdict unauthorized by law, the only course......
-
Louis v. State
...of recently stolen property" inference in theft cases, as mentioned in Frazier, was extended to robbery cases in Batiste v. State, 464 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex.Crim.App.1971). In Batiste, the complainant testified he was walking down a street at about 12:50 a.m. when two Black men robbed him at......
-
Moulton v. State
...by virtue of the admission of the testimony originally objected to.' For the more recent application of the rule see: Batiste v. State, 464 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Brown v. State, 457 S.W.2d 917 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Young v. State, 422 S.W.2d 444 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Baity v. State, 455 S......