Burks v. State, 41545
| Decision Date | 30 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 41545,41545 |
| Parties | Travis Hubert BURKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jack M. Sessom, Greenville, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is forgery with prior felony convictions alleged for enhancement under Article 63, Vernon's Ann.P.C.; the punishment, life.
Appellant's first ground of error is that the prosecutor asked certain questions concerning appellant's prior criminal records from an expert witness. There is a complete absence of any showing that the questions were propounded in bad faith. This is especially true since three prior felony convictions of the same nature were alleged in the indictment. Moreover, appellant's objections to such questions were not timely made thus precluding our review of the contention, Dobbs v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 398 S.W.2d 557; and when made, the court responded to appellant's objection and appellant did not pursue the matter until he received an adverse ruling from the court which is requisite in order to preserve reversible error. In Van Skike v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 388 S.W.2d 716, we said:
'
His second ground of error is that the court erred in his charge to the jury on the question of appellant's sanity. In the absence of an objection to such charge made prior to its submission to the jury nothing is presented for review. Byrd v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 373 S.W.2d 745; 12A Tex.Dig., Criminal Law, Section 847.
He next contends that the prosecutor committed reversible error in commenting on appellant's failure to testify during his argument to the jury.
The bill, as qualified by the trial court, demonstrated that the court responded to each objection made by appellant and appellant did not pursue the matter until the received an adverse ruling from the court. No error is presented. Van Skike v. State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goss v. State
...an adverse ruling will generally prevent review on appeal. Denison v. State, 651 S.W.2d 754, 761 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Burks v. State, 432 S.W.2d 925, 926 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Cazares v. State, 488 S.W.2d 110, 112 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Jones v. State, 482 S.W.2d 634, 636 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); and Ship......
-
Larkin v. State, No. 10-06-00313-CR (Tex. App. 5/14/2008)
...221 S.W.3d 695, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); accord Washington v. State, 771 S.W.2d 537, 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); Burks v. State, 432 S.W.2d 925, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968); Clayton v. State, No. 10-06-00254-CR, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 7910, at *5 (Tex. App.-Waco Oct. 3, 2007, pet. ref'd) (n......
-
Smith v. State, 41697
...he arrested appellant on a prior occasion. No objection was made to such testimony and no error is therefore preserved. Burks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 925. As his twenty-fifth ground of error, appellants asserts that the infliction of the death penalty as punishment for the crime o......
-
Bell v. State
...No error was committed. Morris v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 920; Hughes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 433 S.W.2d 698; Burks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 925. The twenty-third ground of error relates to a side bar remark of the prosecutor. Objection was made to the same, but the court nev......