Brown v. State
Decision Date | 10 September 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 58106,No. 3,58106,3 |
Citation | 605 S.W.2d 572 |
Parties | Jimmy L. BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Donald L. Curry, Lubbock, for appellant.
Alton R. Griffin, Dist. Atty. and Hollis Browning, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lubbock, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before ROBERTS, PHILLIPS and DALLY, JJ.
The appellant was found guilty of aggravated rape and was assessed a term of 30 years' confinement. We find a reversible error among 32 grounds set forth by the appellant.
This is another case which must be reversed because of Childs v. State, 491 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), an opinion which was "unsupported by precedent and by reason, and (which has been) overruled." Ward v. State, 591 S.W.2d 810, 818 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). Also see Wrenn v. State, 597 S.W.2d 369 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Jewell v. State, 593 S.W.2d 314 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); White v. State, 590 S.W.2d 936 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Washington v. State, 590 S.W.2d 493 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).
The motion for mistrial should have been granted. Even if we accept the State's argument that the recommendation form was evidence of the appellant's character it was not evidence of reputation, and the witness was not made subject thereby to impeachment with "have-you-heard" questions. Ward v. State, 591 S.W.2d 810, 818 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). The attempt by the State to turn the neighbor from a character witness (if she was one) into a reputation witness was obviously improper. "There is no better known rule than that the reputation of the defendant cannot be inquired into by the state unless the accused himself opens up the way ...." Childress v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 215, 241 S.W. 1029, 1033 (1922). Cf. Els v. State, 525 S.W.2d 11 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). There was no sound justification for impeachment of the witness with "have-you-heard" questions.
The question which was asked implied strongly that the appellant had been indicted for an extraneous offense that involved intent to commit rape. In a rape trial, such a question is obviously harmful. A mistrial should have been declared, and we must grant a new trial because of the error which is discussed in grounds 12 through 18.
Even though we have found reversible trial error, we must dispose of the appellant's contentions that the evidence was insufficient. Swabado v. State, 597 S.W.2d 361 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Rains v. State, 604 S.W.2d 118 (Tex.Cr.App., No. 59,107, 1980).
The appellant claims that there was insufficient evidence that the victim suffered serious bodily injury, as alleged. "Serious bodily injury" means, inter alia, bodily injury "that causes ... serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted ... impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ." V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 1.07(a)(34). The victim's nose was broken and deformed on the day of the offense. The evidence was that such an injury would cause disfigurement and dysfunction of the nose if the bone were not set. In this case the bone was set, which prevented disfigurement and impairment of function. The setting of the bone did not make the evidence insufficient. The relevant issue was the disfiguring and impairing quality of the bodily injury as it was inflicted, not after the effects had been ameliorated or exacerbated by other actions such as medical treatment. See Boney v. State, 572 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) ( ). The evidence was sufficient to prove that the bodily injury was serious before it was treated medically. Grounds 5 and 7 are overruled.
Grounds 8 and 9 also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, but they do nothing more than to argue that the jury should have had a reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. The evidence was conflicting, and the State's case was sufficient if the appellant's evidence was disbelieved. The grounds have no merit.
Ground 19 complains that an exhibit (a pair of boots) was the fruit of an illegal search. Although the seizure of the boots involves several constitutional problems, we must sustain it ultimately.
Officer Rankin went to the appellant's apartment with a warrant for the arrest of the appellant; no question about the validity of that warrant is raised. Rankin knocked on the appellant's back door; the appellant opened the door; Rankin went into the kitchen with Detective Akers behind him and handcuffed the appellant. While Akers stood with the appellant, Rankin "checked the rest of the house to see if anyone else was in the house." (He also went to the front door and let in "the other officers.") During this search of the house, Rankin walked into the "back bedroom" and looked into the closet, where the saw a pair of boots on the floor of the closet. He did not seize the boots at that time. Presumably the officers took the appellant to jail. Rankin went to a magistrate and made an affidavit, which was sworn to at 2:13 p. m. on December 13, 1974, and which read (emphasis supplied):
A search warrant issued two minutes later. The boots were seized under authority of the search warrant, and they were admitted in evidence at the trial.
The appellant argues that the warrant was obtained by the use of the fruits of an illegal search of his bedroom-the "check" that Rankin made after the arrest. In Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762-763 & 766, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2039-2040, 2041, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis supplied), the constitutional limit on searches incident to arrests was explained:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pitonyak v. State
...to article 38.23(a). A search warrant may not be procured lawfully by the use of unlawfully obtained information. Brown v. State, 605 S.W.2d 572, 577 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). When a search warrant is issued on the basis of an affidavit containing unlawfully obtained information, the evidence se......
-
Nash v. State
...as it was inflicted, not after the effects have been ameliorated or exacerbated by other actions such as medical treatment. Brown v. State, 605 S.W.2d 572, 575 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980), overruled on other grounds, Hedicke v. State, 779 S.W.2d 837 (Tex.Crim.App. Although the State of......
-
McClintock v. State, PD–1641–15
...use of illegally obtained information." State v. Cuong Phu Le , 463 S.W.3d 872, 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (citing Brown v. State , 605 S.W.2d 572, 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), overruled on other grounds by Hedicke v. State , 779 S.W.2d 837 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) ). This is nothing more than......
-
Perez v. State
...warrant may not be procured lawfully by the use of illegally obtained information." 463 S.W.3d at 877, quoting Brown v. State, 605 S.W.2d 572, 577 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980), overruled on other grounds by Hedicke v. State, 779 S.W.2d 837 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). Accordingly, an officer cannot sanitiz......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...60 L.Ed.2d 177 (1979). A search warrant may not be procured lawfully by the use of illegally obtained information. Brown v. State, 605 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Where police officers obtain a valid search warrant from information gained independently of that gained from an earlier ......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...60 L.Ed.2d 177 (1979). A search warrant may not be procured lawfully by the use of illegally obtained information. Brown v. State, 605 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Where police officers obtain a valid search warrant from information gained independently of that gained from an earlier ......
-
Table of Cases
...v. State, 507 S.W.2d 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974), §12:175.1 Brown v. State, 594 S.W.2d 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), §1:31.4 Brown v. State, 605 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), §§2:71, 2:86 Brown v. State, 649 S.W.2d 160 (Tex.App.—Austin 1983), §17:62 Brown v. State, 657 S.W.2d 143 (Tex. Cri......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...60 L.Ed.2d 177 (1979). A search warrant may not be procured lawfully by the use of illegally obtained information. Brown v. State, 605 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Where police officers obtain a valid search warrant from information gained independently of that gained from an earlier ......