Edwards v. State

Decision Date08 March 1961
Docket NumberNo. 32997,32997
Citation171 Tex.Crim. 70,344 S.W.2d 687
PartiesJames EDWARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Neal Wheeler, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., Thomas B. Thorpe, William F. Tucker, Phil Burleson, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

Rape is the offense; the punishment, death.

The prosecutrix, 32 years of age, lived in the City of Dallas with her two young sons and was employed as a waitress at a local hotel.

Upon being called as a witness by the State, the prosecutrix testified that, on the night in question, as she was walking home from work after getting off a bus, an automobile drove up to the curb and stopped; that a Negro man, whom she positively identified as the appellant, got out of the automobile, ran to her and, as she started to run, knocked her down; that when she screamed appellant, who had a knife in his hand, said, 'If you don't shut up, I'll kill you'; that appellant then dragged her from the ground, pushed her into the automobile, made her lie down in the front seat with her head in his lap, and put his hand on her shoulder, while still holding the knife; that appellant then drove off, saying a white man had paid him to pick her up and take her to him; that, after appellant had driven out of the city, he stopped the automobile and said, 'The s. o. b.' wasn't there; that she begged appellant to take her back to Dallas and appellant said he would because 'he didn't want to get caught with a white woman in his car'; that appellant then started driving and, as he turned off the road, said 'I've just decided I'm going to have some of that white stuff myself,' and about this time, the automobile slipped into the ditch; that appellant, after getting a gun out of the glove compartment, got out of the automobile and told her to get in the back seat and 'be quiet and do what he said'; that appellant then took two floor mats out of the car which he used in attempting to get the car out of the ditch; that a car then drove up and stopped but prosecutrix did not call out because she was afraid; that, after the car drove off, appellant left, carrying the gun and knife, to go to a farm house to secure help; that no other cars passed while appellant was gone and, after several minutes, appellant returned to the automobile, saying he could not arouse anyone; that appellant then left to go to another house for help, and no cars passed while he was gone; that appellant returned the second time and said a man was coming and showed her the gun, saying, 'You better get down on the floor when he comes, and you hadn't better make any noise, because if you do, I'll kill you and him both'; that soon thereafter a man came and helped appellant remove the automobile from the ditch. The prosecutrix testified that appellant then started the automobile and, after driving some distance, stopped, crawled over into the back seat, and said, 'You've had it,' 'I didn't go through all this for nothing,' and, while holding the knife in his teeth, proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her without her consent. The prosecutrix testified that, after completing the act, appellant wiped himself off with a rag, threw the rag on the floor, and said, 'It was better than any colored woman,' and then drove back to the city and let her out in the vicinity of where she was first accosted. She further testified that throughout the ordeal she was afraid appellant would kill her; that when she arrived home she was too scared to call the police but called them the next day, when she reported her experience to Captain Will Fritz of the Dallas Police Department. The prosecutrix stated that, on the night in question, appellant was wearing a tan colored shirt with a Mobil emblem and what appeared to be service station clothing.

Captain Fritz testified that, after he had talked to the prosecutrix, at which time she appeared highly nervous, he started an investigation of the case; that in the investigation the officers, two days later, went to a location where a car had been in a ditch and found a floor mat in the mud; that later, in company with three detectives, he went to a Mobil service station looking for an automobile of a certain description; that when he arrived he asked the operator of the station for permission to check the car and the operator said, 'All right'; that he then went inside to where an automobile was on the wash rack and the appellant was standing nearby doing something to the car; that appellant said the automobile belonged to him and, when asked to open the trunk, said he couldn't because the lock was off and appeared startled and very nervous. Captain Fritz testified that he thereupon placed appellant under arrest and proceeded to search the car. It was shown that, prior to appellant's arrest, Officer Dhority removed from the car a fully loaded .38 calibre pistol which he observed lying on the front seat wrapped in a pink rag. In the search of the automobile, following appellant's arrest, the officers found a paring knife between the cushions of the front seat, a shop rag on the back floor board, and a shovel in the turtle of the car. The pistol and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • September 19, 1984
    ...the discretion of the trial court to permit a witness to use a physical object to illustrate his testimony. See Edwards v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 70, 344 S.W.2d 687 (1961). When that object is helpful in clarifying a witness' testimony for the jury and there is little or no danger that the ju......
  • State v. LaMar
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1967
    ...may, in its discretion, permit a witness to illustrate his testimony by the use of a physical object to the jury.' Edwards v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 70, 344 S.W.2d 687, 690. Defendant's argument here was rejected in Berry v. Harmon, 329 S.W.2d 784, 793 (Mo.). In Kennedy v. Oleson, 251 Iowa 41......
  • Branch v. State, 42306
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 10, 1969
    ...687; Stickney v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 533, 336 S.W.2d 133, cert. denied, 363 U.S. 807, 80 S.Ct. 1245, 4 L.Ed.2d 1151; Edwards v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 70, 344 S.W.2d 687. We note, further, that having found the arrest legal and having admitted the evidence, the court at appellant's request s......
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 28, 1983
    ...was predicated on probable cause; (2) the appellant's warrantless arrest was predicated on probable cause, see Edwards v. State, 344 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Tex.Cr.App.1961); Johnson v. State, 436 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Williams v. State, 621 S.W.2d 609, 611-12 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) , and the c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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