Bennett v. State
| Decision Date | 06 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40828,40828 |
| Citation | 422 S.W.2d 438 |
| Parties | Billy Jack BENNETT and Joe Bob Bennett, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
McCown & Sheehan, Louis T. Dubuque, Dumas (on appeal only), for appellants.
William Hunter, Dist. Atty., Dalhart, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is burglary; both appellants received an eight year sentence.
Their common ground of error No. 3 is that the court erred in admitting evidence of an extraneous offense.
Officer Hudson, when testifying about his investigation of the burglary of the cafe owned by the injured party named in the indictment, stated that he first went to a nearby filling station. Appellants immediately objected and asked that the jury be retired. This being done, Mr. Bynum, owner of the nearby filling station was called and testified that on the day of the cafe burglary, a tire tool and a screw driver were missing from his filling station. Appellants' objection was overruled. In the jury's presence he then testified to the same thing and volunteered that when the tire tool was returned to him he did not see on it any red paint that * * *' Though the court instructed the jury not to consider the volunteered testimony, the prosecutor immediately asked him if some machine in his place was damaged that day. Appellants' objection was again sustained. It was further shown that tire tools similar to the one in question were offered for sale to the general public and that no identifying marks were placed on the tools by the manufacturer differentiating one from another.
In his argument to the jury, the prosecutor pointed out the fact that appellants' possession of the tire tool allegedly taken from Mr. Bynum's service station at the time they were arrested was evidence that they had committed the burglary charged in the indictment. There was no evidence that the tire tool found in appellants' possession was the one taken from Mr. Bynum's service station, and there was no evidence that the tire tool was used in the commission of the offense charged. The introduction of this testimony and the tire tool was evidence of an offense not shown to have been committed by the appellants and unrelated to the offense charged, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin v. State
...principles which have been developed and stated in many cases. See Hafti v. State, 416 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Bennett v. State, 422 S.W.2d 438 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Ford v. State, 484 S.W.2d 727 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Jones v. State, 481 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Shaw v. State, 479 S.W.......
-
Woods v. State
...concerning his commission of other crimes is inadmissible.' 23 Tex.Jur.2d, Evidence, § 197, p. 306. See also Bennett v. State, 422 S.W.2d 438, 439 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Chandler v. State, 417 S.W.2d 68, 69 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Martinez v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 159, 153 S.W.2d 721 (1940); Taylor v......
-
Hinkle v. State, 42071
...purposes for which they were offered. Appellant cites and relies upon Hafti v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 416 S.W.2d 824, and Bennett v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 438. In both of those cases an instrument (a gun in Hafti and a tire tool in Bennett) was shown to be the fruit of a former unrela......
-
Bennett v. State
...granted and the two defendants were tried separately. Convictions at a prior joint trial were reversed by this court in Bennett v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 438. The evidence shows that the cafe was burglarized between the hours of 6:00 P.M. September 19th and 8:00 A.M. September 20th.......