Grant v. State, 42592

Decision Date18 February 1970
Docket NumberNo. 42592,42592
Citation450 S.W.2d 642
PartiesDouglas Lee GRANT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Howard B. Law, Donald R. Scoggins, Dallas (on appeal only), for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., John B. Tolle, Camille Elliott, James P. Finstrom, Jim Ramsey and Russell Ormesher, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to murder with malice; the punishment, 25 years.

The jury rejected appellant's plea of self defense and his application for probation.

The sole ground of error set forth in appellant's brief is:

'THIS APPELLANT WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BY THE TRIAL COURT'S ALLOWING THE STATE'S ATTORNEY TO DISPLAY AN INADMISSIBLE KNIFE TO THE JURY AND BY PERMITTING TESTIMONY WHICH WAS OF NO PROBATIVE VALUE AND SERVED ONLY TO INFLAME THE MINDS OF THE JURORS AND PREJUDICE THIS APPELLANT WITHOUT REGARD TO THE FACTS.'

The knife used in the stabbing was not recovered. The knife referred to in the ground of error was marked as an exhibit and was shown to state's witnesses Glen Littles and the complaining witness from whom testimony was elicited that if appeared to be the kind of knife they saw appellant use in stabbing the complaining witness.

There was no objection in regard to the exhibiting of the knife to these witnesses or to their testimony.

Later in the trial the knife was exhibited to the father of the injured party, another state's witness, and testimony was elicited from him by the state that State's Exhibit No. 1 was not a knife that anybody found on appellant but was the knife he had bought after having it described to him, whereupon the following occurred. 'MR. LAW: (Attorney for Appellant) Your Honor, in view of this testimony, we're going to ask the Court, request the Court to withdraw this as an exhibit and instruct the jury not to--

'THE COURT: It hasn't been offered.

'MR. RAMSEY: It hasn't been offered, Your Honor.

'THE COURT: Two witnesses testified that it appeared to be like it.

'MR. LAW: We ask the Court to instruct the jury to disregard it and--

'THE COURT: They don't consider the evidence until it's admitted into evidence, of course.

'MR. RAMSEY: We don't plan to offer it as evidence.'

The knife exhibited to the witnesses was not admitted in evidence. It is not a part of the record on appeal. It is described in the record only as 'a banana knife' and as 'a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Waters v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 31 Diciembre 1987
    ...failed to request a limiting instruction, did not move for a mistrial and subsequently withdrew his objection. Grant v. State, 450 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex.Crim.App.1970). The point of error is The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. * Both appellant and the State rely on the reasoning of ......
  • Ortega v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 10 Noviembre 1970
    ...were present in the same room when appellant attacked her sexually and forced her to commit acts of sodomy with him. As in Grant v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 642, we find no reversible error. A portion of the time the knife was shown to the witness the jury was out of the courtroom. In......
  • Brito v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 10 Noviembre 1970
    ...presented, that the State was guilty of misconduct or acted in bad faith. See Ortega v. State (No. 43,084). Cf. Grant v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 642. Next, appellant complains the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial upon request 'when on two occasions the prosecutor impr......

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