Contreras v. State

Decision Date06 May 1942
Docket NumberNo. 22009.,22009.
Citation162 S.W.2d 716
PartiesCONTRERAS v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; W. D. Howe, Judge.

Fidel Contreras, alias Raul Contreras, alias Fidel Lopez, alias Raul Escontrias, alias Fidel Escontrias, was convicted of murder, and he appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Joseph J. Roybal, of El Paso, for appellant.

Roy D. Jackson, Dist. Atty., and Gill L. Newsom, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of El Paso, and Spurgeon E. Bell, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of murder and his punishment was assessed at death.

Appellant's main contention seems to be that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction in this, — that the accomplice witness is not sufficiently corroborated to connect him with the commission of the offense; that he agreed to its commission and was doing something at the time in furtherance of the common design of all participants.

We have read the record with great care and reached the conclusion that appellant's contention is not well founded. The evidence shows that the deceased, Enrique Valles, at the time of the homicide, was employed by J. M. Cruze, who owned and operated a dairy; that the deceased lived in a small adobe house a short distance from Mr. Cruze's residence; that about 6 P.M. a black Sedan automobile driven by three men appeared at the dairy; that two of the men got out of the car and talked to Valles and that was the last time that Cruze saw the deceased.

Trinidad Rodriguez testified that he, Esteban Rodriguez and appellant went to the dairy where the deceased was and asked him if he knew where they could get a drink, to which he replied, "Yes, about a mile from here"; that they invited the deceased to go with them; that he accepted their invitation and they got some liquor. From there they went to the city of El Paso, got some Sotol, and then went to appellant's home, where all four of them drank it. Later, they all left to take the deceased to his home; that Trinidad Rodriguez and Esteban Rodriguez occupied the front seat with Trinidad doing the driving, while appellant and the deceased occupied the rear seat; that they drove out on the Carlsbad road to the Sand Hills, stopped their car and extinguished the lights; that appellant told the deceased to get out, which he declined to do, whereupon appellant started to pull him out of the car. Appellant asked the deceased how many years he had been working at the dairy, and when deceased told him, "about thirteen years", appellant said, "I believe you must have some money then", to which deceased replied, "No, I earned very little and gave some of it to my children." Appellant insisted that the deceased had some money and told him to tell the truth. The deceased became frightened and said that he had about two thousand dollars at his home buried under the floor. Appellant then struck the deceased on the head with a car crank and knocked him to the ground. Appellant and Esteban then dug a hole in a sand hill while Trinidad kept watch for cars. They took a watch and key from the pockets of the deceased, placed his body in the hole and covered it with sand, after which they proceeded to the home of the deceased and searched it. Appellant came out of the house with a gunny sack and placed it in the car. They then went to the home of the appellant and divided the loot among them. Esteban received a black coat, a black sweater, a pair of shoes, a hat and yellow pair of pants. Appellant kept a red shirt, a pair of red trousers, a pair of red corduroy trousers and a pistol. He gave Trinidad a watch and a flash light.

The property was later recovered by the officers and identified as that belonging to the deceased. The body of the deceased was found by the officers as a result of information given them by Trinidad.

Appellant took the witness stand and admitted going in his automobile with Esteban and Trinidad to the dairy at the time in question. He also admitted that they invited the deceased to ride with them to get some liquor. He further admitted that they went to the city of El Paso, where they purchased a bottle of Sotol, which they drank, and then started to take the deceased home; that he (appellant) was doing the driving and Trinidad occupied the front seat with him while Esteban and the deceased occupied the rear seat; that Trinidad instructed him to drive out the Carlsbad road; that Esteban struck the deceased with his fist, knocking him down in between the rear and front seats; that Trinidad jumped over the front seat, put a rag over the deceased's mouth and hit him with something; that when this happened he (appellant) asked them, "What is going on here?" to which Trinidad replied, "You drive the car; if not, you will find out what is going on." Being afraid not to comply with their demands, appellant drove on to the Sand Hills, where Esteban and Trinidad dug a hole, placed the body of the deceased therein, and covered it up. From there they went to the home of the deceased which Trinidad entered by opening the door; that he (appellant) followed Trinidad into the house. Trinidad brought some clothing, a pistol and flash light out of the house and placed them in the car. They then drove home where Trinidad divided the property among them.

Appellant testified that he did not know that the deceased had any money because he appeared to be poor; that on two occasions he had taken Isabella Hernandez out to the deceased's home to get some money from him. Appellant denied that he had previously entered...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Vance
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 22 janvier 1980
    ...v. Hermens, 5 Ill.2d 277, 125 N.E.2d 500 (1955); Gray v. State, 224 Md. 308, 317, 167 A.2d 865, 869 (1961); Contreras v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 285, 289, 162 S.W.2d 716, 718 (1942).6 It appears to be the general rule that while one accomplice ordinarily may not corroborate another, See, e.g.,......
  • Sheffield v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 3 octobre 1962
    ...Williams v. State, 59 Tex.Cr.R. 347, 128 S.W. 1120; Shaffer v. State, 121 Tex.Cr.R. 137, 52 S.W.2d 1054. Also, see: Contreras v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 285, 162 S.W.2d 716, which holds that it is not necessary that the corroborating evidence support that of the accomplice to each criminative ......
  • Sheffield v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 24 avril 1957
    ...fact, but is sufficient if the corroborating evidence tends to connect the accused with the offense charged. Contreras v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 285, 162 S.W.2d 716. Every constituent element of the offense as testified to by the accomplice need not be corroborated. Williams v. State, 59 Tex.......
  • Saldivar v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 6 juin 1945
    ...thereby. See Moore v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 145, 161 S.W.2d 83; Green v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 221, 161 S.W.2d 1074; Contreras v. State, 144 Tex. Cr.R. 285, 162 S.W.2d 716. We are of the opinion that the court was justified in reaching the conclusion that appellant failed to use proper dilige......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT