Cannon v. State, 69022
Citation | 691 S.W.2d 664 |
Decision Date | 08 May 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 69022,69022 |
Parties | Joseph John CANNON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
The appellant was convicted of capital murder. In response to the affirmative answers of the jury to the special issues submitted under Article 37.071, V.A.C.C.P., the court assessed the death penalty.
On appeal appellant advances twelve grounds of error. He complains that the trial court erred in failing to suppress his extrajudicial confession and erred in failing to withdraw the confession from the jury's consideration at the conclusion of the guilt stage of the trial. He also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction and the affirmative findings to special issues one and two at the penalty stage of the trial. Appellant further contends that a mistrial should have been granted when there was improper jury argument, that the court erred in refusing several special requested jury charges, and in refusing to reconsider the voluntariness of the confession. He further urges that the court erred in refusing to allow him to perfect a "bill of exception" at the hearing on the motion for new trial by introducing the statement of facts from the hearing on the motion for new trial following his first trial.
A brief recitation of the facts is necessary to put the grounds of error in proper perspective.
Shortly before noon on September 30, 1977, the body of Anne Walsh was found by San Antonio Police Officer Shelton Spears, lying in a pool of blood on the floor of her Bexar County home. She had suffered seven gunshot wounds. Three wounds were to the chest, one was to the center of the abdomen, and one to her head. The others were to her arms. The wounds and the paths of the bullets were consistent with someone standing over her and firing.
There was a large trail of smeared blood which indicated that the body had been dragged out from under a pool table where the deceased had crawled in an attempt to escape the shots. The blouse of her dress had been ripped open, her skirt had been pulled up to her waist and her panty hose had been ripped and pulled down to her knees.
Officer Spears found the body when he brought the appellant to the Walsh home. Appellant had been involved in an automobile wreck and had been arrested. Spears found the Ford Maverick vehicle registered to a member of the Walsh family, and suspecting it was stolen, took the appellant to the Walsh home to check out his story that he was in rightful possession of the vehicle.
Appellant was 17 years old and illiterate, though he could write his name. He was a former resident of Houston and had hitchhiked to San Antonio, intending to go to Las Vegas, Nevada. He was arrested in San Antonio on a burglary charge. Appellant was represented on the burglary charge by court-appointed counsel, Dan Carabin, a San Antonio attorney. Carabin was successful in having the court grant appellant probation approximately one week before the alleged murder. Appellant was homeless and had no friends or relatives in San Antonio. Carabin and his sister, Anne Walsh, also an attorney, took an interest in appellant's welfare. He was permitted to live at the Walsh home while he was on probation. The deceased had several teenage children living at home. They attempted to befriend appellant by helping him find a job and inviting him to go along on social events.
Dan Carabin testified that about 9:30 a.m. on September 30, 1977 he received a telephone call from the appellant inquiring how he was to pay him or his sister if he stayed around the house. The inquiry didn't make much sense to Carabin as there was no agreement for him or his sister to be paid. Carabin had clients in his office and told the appellant that he would call him back. When he returned the call about 10:30 a.m., no one answered the phone at his sister's house.
Stephani Walsh, the deceased's daughter, went to her mother's office about 10:30 a.m. on the date in question to exchange automobiles. She and her mother agreed to meet at home for lunch. Stephani took her mother's stationwagon and left her 1974 white Ford Maverick for her mother to drive.
Reserve Deputy Constable Robert Wenzel drove by the Walsh residence on September 30, 1977, and saw appellant in the white Ford Maverick. Wenzel knew that the vehicle belonged to a Walsh family member and that appellant was not a family member. Wenzel drove on but watched the Maverick through his rear window of his automobile. The Maverick suddenly lunged onto the road and proceeded in an erratic manner in the same direction as Wenzel was driving. The Maverick sped past Wenzel and Wenzel gave chase. The Maverick swerved from one side of the road to the other. The chase ended when the Maverick crashed into a chainlink fence beside "Al's Corner," a restaurant/bar.
Kenneth Kizer, a bartender, saw the appellant exit the Maverick after the crash and run across the road into a brush-covered field as he discarded his shirt. Kizer called the San Antonio Police. Twenty minutes later appellant returned and entered the bar and bought a Coke. Appellant remained in the bar with Kizer and Wenzel until the police arrived.
Officer Spears took the appellant into custody, gave him the Miranda warnings, and then took him to the nearby Walsh home to check out his story about lawful possession of the Maverick. The body of Anne Walsh was then discovered. Other officers were called.
Later Spears transported appellant to the homicide division of the San Antonio Police Department. Later in the day after interrogation by Detective Castillon, the appellant gave the officer a written statement which reads in part in its original form:
Several firearms, including the .22 caliber revolver shown to be the murder weapon, were taken from the deceased's home and were shown to have been found in the Maverick the appellant was driving. A tennis racket and prescription drugs taken from the home were also found in the car. Mexican coins and moon and garnet stones taken from the home were found in appellant's pockets. A spot of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. State, 70713
...determination of deliberateness must be found from the totality of the circumstances. Williams, 773 S.W.2d at 539; Cannon v. State, 691 S.W.2d 664, 677 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1110, 106 S.Ct. 897, 88 L.Ed.2d 931 (1986). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, the......
-
Livingston v. State, 69477
...State and Federal Constitutions as well as Art. 38.08, supra. 16 See Losada v. State, 721 S.W.2d 305 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Cannon v. State, 691 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Banks v. State, supra; Nickens v. State, 604 S.W.2d 101 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Bird v. State, 527 S.W.2d 891 (Tex.Cr.App.197......
-
Holland v. State
...order to satisfy his creditors. Given all the evidence in the record before the Court, and observing the rule stated in Cannon v. State, 691 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Cr.App.1985) that each death penalty case must be decided on its own merit, we are constrained to hold the evidence adduced at trial s......
-
Alexander v. State, 68941
...Santana v. State, 714 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). Each case, of course, must be decided on its own facts. Cannon v. State, 691 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Santana v. State, Here there was evidence of two prior felony convictions, one for arson and one for involuntary manslaughter, and in ......
-
Confessions
...surrounding a crime or other general questioning of citizens in a fact-finding process is not affected by Miranda rules. Cannon v. State, 691 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). A police officer’s questions asked for the purpose of obtaining routine information such as name, address or socia......
-
Confessions
...surrounding a crime or other general questioning of citizens in a fact-finding process is not affected by Miranda rules. Cannon v. State, 691 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. A police officer’s questions asked for the purpose of obtaining routine information such as name, address or social secur......
-
Confessions
...surrounding a crime or other general questioning of citizens in a fact-finding process is not affected by Miranda rules. Cannon v. State, 691 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). A police officer’s questions asked for the purpose of obtaining routine information such as name, address or socia......
-
Confessions
...surrounding a crime or other general questioning of citizens in a fact-finding process is not affected by Miranda rules. Cannon v. State, 691 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). A police officer’s questions asked for the purpose of obtaining routine information such as name, address or socia......