Gausman v. State, 44843
| Decision Date | 12 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 44843,44843 |
| Citation | 478 S.W.2d 458 |
| Parties | Donald H. GAUSMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Guy Bonham, San Antonio, for appellant.
Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., Gordon V. A. Armstrong, Bill Harris and Antonio G. Cantu, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for felony theft where the punishment was assessed at 3 years.
On April 15, 1971, appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of not guilty before the court who found him guilty after hearing the evidence offered.
On appeal, appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction, principally contending that there is no evidence to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice witness.
Gilbert Sirois testified that on or about October 30, 1970, he went to appellant's apartment on 9th Street in the City of San Antonio and obtained permission to stay in the apartment for a few days. He revealed that on the day in question, the appellant showed him a set of car keys which the appellant said he had taken from an Oldsmobile 442 on the lot at Cavender Oldsmobile Company which was located about two blocks from the apartment. Appellant told Sirois he planned to 'take the car,' have it painted somewhere on the northside of town before taking it to Los Angeles, California, for the purpose of sale.
That same night while Sirois and the appellant were drinking coffee at the Kopper Kettle, Sirois met a friend of the appellant's known only as 'Billy'. After the three returned to the appellant's apatment, the appellant and 'Billy' left the apartment with the stated purpose of stealing the car.
Sirois and appellant's roommate, Gentry, discussed the matter and, being curious as to whether appellant intended to steal the car, followed the other two. After a short distance, Gentry, not believing a theft would be committed, returned. Sirois continued on to the car lot where he saw 'Billy' open a car door and get into an Oldsmobile automobile and then drive 50 yards and stop to pick up the appellant. Upon returning to the apartment building, he observed the car parked behind the building and saw 'Billy' taking license plates off another car parked nearby and the appellant removing the price list sticker from the stolen car. Sirois went into the apartment and when he came outside later, the appellant and 'Billy' had disappeared with the stolen vehicle.
On November 5, 1970, Sirois went to Cavender Oldsmobile dealership and related to the New Car Sales Manager what he had observed several nights before. A police officer was called and took a report of the incident.
Sirois also revealed that about November 30, 1970, he had ecountered the appellant who related that he had taken the car to Laredo and then to California where he had abandoned it in the Hollywood area.
On January 18, 1971, Sirois gave a written statement to the police concerning the offense charged substantially the same as the report given to the police officer on November 5, 1970.
William Hasbrook, New Car Sales Manager for the automobile dealer, testified that the two-door 1970 Oldsmobile...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May v. State
...failed to disclose or even concealed it. Carrillo v. State, supra; Easter v. State, 536 S.W.2d 223 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Gausman v. State, 478 S.W.2d 458 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). Mere presence at the scene of the offense does not compel the conclusion that the witness is an accomplice witness. Arney......
-
Easter v. State
...he or she knew of the crime but failed to disclose it or even concealed it. 24 Tex.Jur.2d, Evidence, Sec. 690, p. 312; Gausman v. State, 478 S.W.2d 458 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). Further, if a State's witness has no complicity in the offense for which an accused is on trial, his or her testimony is......
-
Villarreal v. State
...accomplice witness because he knew of the crime but failed to disclose it or even concealed it. Easter v. State, supra; Gausman v. State, 478 S.W.2d 458 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). Ballard v. State, 519 S.W.2d 426 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), was a conviction for murder under the former penal code. During the......
-
Ferguson v. State
...accomplice witness because he knew of the crime but failed to disclose it or even concealed it. Easter v. State, supra; Gausman v. State, 478 S.W.2d 458 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). Appellant has cited a number of cases which hold that a witness who receives stolen property, knowing it to be stolen, ......