Green v. State, 48385
Citation | 510 S.W.2d 919 |
Decision Date | 12 June 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 48385,48385 |
Parties | Norman Leslie GREEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Durward D. Moore, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty. and Richard W. Wilhelm, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of indecent exposure to a person under sixteen years of age; punishment was assessed at five years' imprisonment.
By his first ground of error appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior indecent exposure. Following presentation of the defense witnesses, who testified to the defense of alibi and placed appellant's identity in question, the State was permitted by its rebuttal witnesses to prove an extraneous offense which occurred two weeks prior to the charged offense. The extraneous offense and the charged offense were both shown to have occurred in the same manner, and in the same color automobile. The court by its charge properly limited consideration of the extraneous offense to the issue of identity. No error is shown. See Lee v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 496 S.W.2d 616.
Next appellant contends the court improperly permitted three witnesses to identify appellant in court, asserting that improper photographic displays in the absence of defense counsel tainted the in-court identification. The trial court conducted a hearing on the matter outside the presence of the jury and entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law, concluding that the in-court identifications were made solely on the basis of observations of appellant at the time of the offenses. The record supports the conclusions reached by the trial court. Our own examination of the record reveals that the photographic display was not conducted in a suggestive way, and that the in-court identifications were not tainted. See Johnson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 494 S.W.2d 870. Furthermore, there is no right to counsel at a pre-trial photographic display. United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300, 93 S.Ct. 2568, 37 L.Ed.2d 619.
Appellant next contends two witnesses to the extraneous offense should not have been permitted to testify because they were not on the list of witnesses the State expected to call given him prior to trial under order of the court. Although appellant's motion to list State's witnesses is in the record, it does not appear on its face to have been brought to the attention of the court and a ruling secured thereon. At the time appellant interposed his objection, however, the court stated:
'He's (prosecuting attorney) turned in the witnesses that had to do with the case in chief and that's all the Court ordered them to do anyway.'
We therefore can only draw the conclusion that the court had not ordered the names of the rebuttal witnesses in question be listed, and appellant's contention is without foundation in the record. Cf. Hoagland v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 494 S.W.2d 186.
By his fourth ground of error appellant contends the court erred in permitting the jury to separate after being charged without consent of the defendant, in violation of Article 35.23, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. Although appellant asserts the jury was allowed to separate over counsel's objections, this assertion is utterly without foundation in the record. We have repeatedly held that, where the record is silent, there is a presumption that procedural rules were complied with. See, e.g., Davis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 507 S.W.2d 740 ( ); Bishop v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 507 S.W.2d 745 ( ); Lewis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 501 S.W.2d 88 ( ); Haas v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 498 S.W.2d 206 ( ); Arnold v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 345 ( ); Ex parte Rocha, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 169 ( ); Morgan v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 470 S.W.2d 877 ( ); Lipscomb v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 467 S.W.2d 417 (compliance with Article 36.27, V.A.C.C.P., presumed). Where procedural requirements do not affirmatively appear in the record to have been violated, a presumption of regularity must prevail. 1
Neither Goodall v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 501 S.W.2d 342, nor Rhynes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 479 S.W.2d 70, supports appellant on this ground of error. First, in Goodall, supra, the defendant developed the record on the hearing of his motion for new trial, which affirmatively showed he did not consent to the separation. In Rhynes, supra, the record was likewise developed on motion for new trial. In the instant case appellant did not raise the issue of jury separation among those grounds urged in his motion for new trial, but instead raised the issue for the first time on appeal.
Second, Goodall, supra, reversed not for a failure of the record to show consent: 'The record in this cause shows . . . app...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beets v. State
...such as those to be called by the State during its case-in-chief. Elkins v. State, 543 S.W.2d 648 (Tex.Crim.App.1976); Green v. State, 510 S.W.2d 919 (Tex.Crim.App.1974). The posture of the instant case is opposite that usually found in witness discovery situations. Appellant is not arguing......
-
Harris v. State
...by permission of the court and with the consent of the parties. 3 The provisions of Article 35.23, supra, are mandatory. Green v. State, 510 S.W.2d 919 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Goodall v. State, 501 S.W.2d 342, 343 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Wells v. State, 634 S.W.2d 868, 870 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist......
-
State v. Magwood
...v. Williams, 39 Ohio St.2d 20, 313 N.E.2d 859, 862-63 (1974); Hobson v. State, 277 P.2d 695, 700-02 (Okl.Crim.1954); Green v. State, 510 S.W.2d 919, 921 (Tex.Crim.1974). See in addition C. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Procedure § 553, pp. 54-55 (12th ed. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEA......
-
Duffy v. State
...record did not affirmatively show that the oath was not given. Cf. McCloud v. State, 527 S.W.2d 885 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Green v. State, 510 S.W.2d 919 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Davis v. State, 507 S.W.2d 740 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Grant v. State, 507 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Appellant seems to arg......