Daniels v. State
Decision Date | 14 May 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 60014,No. 3,60014,3 |
Citation | 600 S.W.2d 813 |
Parties | Charles Melvin DANIELS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Preston DeShazo and J. Thomas Sullivan, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry M. Wade, Dist. Atty., Ronald D. Hinds, Stewart C. Robinson, Jr., and Reed W. Prospere, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before PHILLIPS, DAVIS and DALLY, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of murder. The punishment is imprisonment for life.
The appellant asserts that: unlawfully obtained evidence was admitted; the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction; hearsay evidence was erroneously admitted; there was jury misconduct.
Appellant contends that three weapons found after an alleged unlawful search and seizure were erroneously admitted in evidence. The pivotal issue is whether the court erred in admitting in evidence the weapons obtained in an inventory search of an automobile. Approximately two weeks after the murder the appellant and two companions were riding in an automobile when a police officer stopped them after he observed the automobile going the wrong way on a one way street. The officer asked to see an operator's license and the appellant stated he had none. Appellant was asked what his name was; he told the officer his name was Milton R. Lewis, Jr. The appellant was arrested and no identification was found on him. Appellant's companions were then placed under arrest, but the record fails to reveal on what charge they were arrested. However, neither of appellant's companions had operators' licenses. The vehicle was impounded but prior to its being towed to the city pound an inventory search was conducted by the police. Three pistols were found under the seat. One was determined to be the murder weapon and another had belonged to the deceased.
Inventory searches pursuant to a lawful impoundment were held not to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). Thus before the inventory search may be upheld there must be a lawful impoundment.
The appellant and his companions were placed under custodial arrest. There was no one to whom the police could have given possession of the automobile. Appellant argues that the arrest of his two companions was a subterfuge to create justification for the impoundment. Without discussing appellant's lack of standing to raise such an issue we note that neither of his companions had an operator's license. They would not have been able to take possession and drive the automobile. Furthermore, when the appellant was arrested he had no identification. Appellant at the time stated that the automobile belonged to his uncle. The police would have been derelict in their duty if they had given possession of an automobile driven by an unidentified person to his companions without first determining the identity of the driver and the ownership of the vehicle. In contrast with our decision in Benavides v. State, 600 S.W.2d 809 ( ) where we found the automobile was unlawfully impounded, the impoundment here was lawful. South Dakota v. Opperman, supra; Evers v. State, 576 S.W.2d 46 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Robertson v. State, 541 S.W.2d 608 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). The inventory search that was conducted was not excessive in scope. The weapons were found under the seat. Also, the fact that the inventory search was conducted prior to the automobile being towed rather than at the city pound makes no difference. In inventory cases, usually the physical location of a lawfully impounded vehicle would not be relevant. Evers v. State, supra. The weapons were lawfully seized and properly admitted in evidence.
The appellant also says that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for the offense of murder. The appellant urges that the evidence does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of appellant's guilt. He relies on Thompson v. State, 563 S.W.2d 247 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). The rule on which the appellant relies is one applicable to cases based on circumstantial evidence. Since there was evidence that the appellant had admitted killing the deceased, this was not a circumstantial evidence case. Although the appellant had requested that the court submit a circumstantial evidence charge and the trial court did submit to the jury a charge on circumstantial evidence, it was not necessary to submit such a charge.
Two witnesses testified that appellant admitted killing the deceased; they had also seen appellant with the murder weapon prior to the offense. The weapon which was used to kill the deceased and a weapon belonging to the deceased were found in the automobile being driven by the appellant. The deceased's watch was found in possession of the appellant.
Appellant argues that the two witnesses who testified that they had seen him with the murder weapon and that the appellant had admitted to them that he committed the offense, were unreliable and had a motive for untruthfulness. Therefore, he asserts, it is reasonable to deduce that they were not telling the truth and thus not every reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of the appellant had been excluded. However, the jury is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses and of the weight to be given their testimony. Lafoon v. State, 543 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Carlisle v. State, 549 S.W.2d 698 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). The jury obviously chose to believe their testimony. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt.
Appellant next contends that testimony of two witnesses should not have been admitted. Both...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gill v. State
...procedure, a police officer or his agent lawfully inventories the contents of a lawfully impounded motor vehicle. E.g. Daniels v. State, 600 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Benavides v. State, 600 S.W.2d 809 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). Because the officer or his agent is doing nothing more than taking......
-
Osban v. State
...it was appellant's desire to leave his car with his companion, the officers should have respected his wishes. See Daniels v. State, 600 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex.Cr.App.1980)." In this instance, the evidence is clear that the officer did not consider the alternative of releasing appellant's vehi......
-
Eckert v. State
...juror by showing the reason for the conclusion reached and the mental processes by which the jury arrived at its verdict. Daniels v. State, 600 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.); Berry v. State, 588 S.W.2d 932 (Tex.Cr.App.); Arnold v. State, 486 S.W.2d 345 (Tex.Cr.App.). A jury verdict may not be im......
-
Delgado v. State, 961-84
...Christian v. State, 592 S.W.2d 625 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Benavides v. State, 600 S.W.2d 809 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Daniels v. State, 600 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Backer v. State, 656 S.W.2d 463 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Stephen v. State, 677 S.W.2d 42 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). In the instant case the appel......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...automobile, placed under custodial arrest, and his property cannot be protected by any means other than impoundment. [Daniels v. State, 600 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Lagaite, supra .] Impoundment of a vehicle is authorized if there is a reasonable connection between the crime and t......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...by SEARCH AND SEIZURE: PROPERTY §2:56 Tൾඑൺඌ Cඋංආංඇൺඅ Lൺඐඒൾඋ’ඌ Hൺඇൽൻඈඈ 2-46 any means other than impoundment. [Daniels v. State, 600 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Lagaite, supra .] Impoundment of a vehicle is authorized if there is a reasonable connection between the crime and the vehi......
-
Table of Cases
...154 S.W.3d. 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), §15:155 Daniell v. State, 848 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), §15:161.3 Daniels v. State, 600 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), §2:56.6 Daniels v. State, 768 S.W.2d 314 (Tex.App. Tyler 1988, pet. ref’d ), §§14:113.3.2.5, 14:113.3.3.2 Daniels v. U.......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...automobile, placed under custodial arrest, and his property cannot be protected by any means other than impoundment. [Daniels v. State, 600 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Lagaite, supra .] Impoundment of a vehicle is authorized if there is a reasonable connection between the crime and t......