Gonzales v. State
| Decision Date | 21 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 45878,45878 |
| Citation | 492 S.W.2d 263 |
| Parties | Teofilo Salcido GONZALES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Charles R. Kaufman, Austin, for appellant.
Wayne Burns, Dist. Atty., Big Spring, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
GREEN, Commissioner.
In a trial before a jury on a plea of not guilty, appellant was convicted of robbery by firearms, and his punishment was assessed at fifteen (15) years. This appeal is from such conviction.
In his first, second, and third grounds of error, the appellant states that the court erred in permitting certain 'hearsay testimony of the Officer Baciel Lambert' as to why he stopped and detained appellant on the occasion in question, the same being 'irrelevant, immaterial, and prejudicial to the defendant.'
On the State's direct examination of its witness Baciel Lambert, it was shown that as the witness, a Deputy Sheriff, was seated in his car on the roadside about to get out of his car, the appellant, who was standing by the car, suddenly let out 'a cuss word,' exhibited a pistol, and reached over and took witness' pistol and car keys. Appellant pointed his pistol at Lambert, placing him in fear of life and bodily harm. He made Lambert get out of the car, and tried to disconnect his radio microphone. Appellant then left the scene in his own car. No further evidence of the robbery was offered by the State at this time, and appellant did not then question Lambert.
The State next placed the Sheriff on the stand, proved venue, and introduced evidence of an escape from jail by appellant. The State rested at this point.
Appellant recalled Lambert and proceeded to elicit testimony that just prior to the events he had testified about, he had been chasing appellant's car for several miles. After Lambert succeeded in stopping him, appellant got out of his car and came back to the car of witness. Lambert asked for his driver's license, and then asked if he minded Lambert looking in his car. Appellant consented, and Lambert, finding nothing of interest, asked appellant if he would open the trunk. Appellant refused to do so unless Lambert produced a search warrant. It was while Lambert was radioing to the Sheriff for a search warrant that the robbery took place. Appellant's attorney further questioned the witness in such fashion as to indicate an effort to raise an issue of the propriety and legality of the arrest.
All of this occurred in the presence of the jury.
The State, on redirect, proposed to have the witness testify as to his reasons for his chasing and stopping the car. Objections of hearsay were sustained as to State's evidence of a radio report received by Lambert of a car with a certain license and of a certain make being involved in a house burglary. We copy as follows the testimony permitted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yebra v. Stephens
...as follows:Evidence of escape from custody and flight is generally held to be admissible on the issue of guilt. E.g., Gonzales v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 492 S.W.2d 263; Jackson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 454 S.W.2d 733; Cawley v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 377, 310 S.W.2d 340, cert. denied 361 U.S. 920,......
-
Hunter v. State
...guilt. Fairris v. State, 515 S.W.2d 921 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Johnson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 534, 244 S.W.2d 235 (1951); Gonzales v. State, 492 S.W.2d 263 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Jackson v. State, 454 S.W.2d 733 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Cawley v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 37, 310 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.Cr.App.1957)......
-
Hodge v. State
...guilt. This was error. Ordinarily, evidence of flight or escape from custody is admissible on the issue of guilt. See Gonzales v. State, 492 S.W.2d 263 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). However, this is not an ordinary situation, and has rarely arisen in this When it has, this Court has uniformly rejected......
-
Fairris v. State, 49183
...v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 506 S.W.2d 870, opinion on rehearing, p. 872, appellant's contention is without merit. See also Gonzales v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 492 S.W.2d 263. The first ground of error is Appellant's second ground of error reads: 'The trial court committed reversible error when it a......