Foy v. State, 58218
Decision Date | 06 February 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 2,No. 58218,58218,2 |
Citation | 593 S.W.2d 707 |
Parties | Aslone FOY, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John Mustachio, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Susan W. Crump, and Ira L. Jones, II, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before ODOM, TOM G. DAVIS and CLINTON, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for arson. After a jury found appellant guilty the trial court assessed punishment at three years.
In his sole ground of error appellant contends reversible error was committed when the trial court allowed the State to introduce evidence of extraneous offenses that were not admissible under any exception to the general rule excluding such evidence.
The record reflects that on the night of November 15, 1976, Mrs. Mearleon Dugar and her daughter saw appellant, their neighbor, throw a burning object through a bedroom window of the Dugar home and then run back into his house. Fire officials who were called to put out the resulting fire discovered fragments of a "Molotov cocktail" in the Dugar bedroom as well as an unused firebomb just inside appellant's yard.
Over objection, the State was allowed to elicit testimony from Mrs. Dugar and her husband that on October 27, 1976, approximately three weeks prior to the date of the offense in question, appellant pointed a pistol at the couple and threatened them as they were leaving a shopping area. Mrs. Dugar also testified that in the early part of November appellant came to the front door of her home threatening her and her son with a pistol he was pointing at them. In the court's charge the jury was instructed to consider evidence of extraneous offenses for the sole purpose of determining appellant's ill will toward Mrs. Dugar, the complainant.
We hold that evidence of appellant's prior misconduct toward the victims of the offense charged was admissible as circumstantial evidence of a motive on his part for committing the offense charged. It is, of course, settled that an accused may not be tried for some collateral crime or for being a criminal generally. See Albrecht v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 97, 100. In the same opinion the Court stated:
"(footnote omitted)
And in Rodriguez v. State, 486 S.W.2d 355, we stated that:
In the instant case the State argues that the evidence of prior assaultive acts committed by appellant against the victims of the offense charged was admissible to show "a continuing motive on the part of the Appellant" for committing the offense charged. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zuliani v. State
...to other acts by the accused against the victim of the crime for which the accused is presently being prosecuted. Foy v. State, 593 S.W.2d 707, 708-09 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Lazcano v. State, 836 S.W.2d 654, 660 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1990, pet. ref'd). In addition, it must fairly tend to raise a......
-
Sandoval v. State
...to other acts by the accused against the victim of the crime for which the accused is presently being prosecuted. Foy v. State, 593 S.W.2d 707, 708–09 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Zuliani v. State, 903 S.W.2d 812, 827 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd). This Court has previously held that when, as ......
-
Smith v. State
...committing the offense charged.'" Page v. State, 819 S.W.2d 883, 887 (Tex.App.-Houston 14th Dist. 1991, pet. ref'd) (quoting Foy v. State, 593 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Tex.Crim.App. Panel Op. 1980)); see Bush v. State, 958 S.W.2d 503, 505-06 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1997, no pet.) (prior instances of v......
-
Smith v. State
...committing the offense charged." Page v. State, 819 S.W.2d 883, 887 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref'd) (quoting Foy v. State, 593 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] Relevant evidence may be excluded where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger o......