Heflin v. State
| Decision Date | 20 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 55442,55442,2 |
| Citation | 574 S.W.2d 554 |
| Parties | Buddy Charles HEFLIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
W. V. Dunnam, Jr., Waco, for appellant.
Felipe Reyna, Dist. Atty. and Rodney S. Goble, Asst. Dist. Atty., Waco, for the State.
Before ODOM, PHILLIPS and DALLY, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for aggravated rape in which punishment was fixed at 50 years. Appellant's grounds of error numbers 10, 11, 12 and 13 complain of the admission into evidence of certain pills found in his automobile when he was arrested approximately one month after the offense occurred. Our disposition of the case makes consideration of his other grounds of error unnecessary.
Appellant was arrested for criminal trespass when an officer, responding to a complaint, saw him emerging from an apartment complex in Waco and chased him down. He fit the description of the suspect in a rape that had occurred in another Waco apartment complex a month earlier. After the arrest, police searched his car which was in the apartment parking lot and discovered several bottles of pills in the pocket of appellant's army field jacket.
At the trial the pills were introduced into evidence over objection. A Department of Public Safety chemist testified to the fact that one of the bottles contained an amphetamine and another contained diazepam, better known by its trade name, Valium. The chemist testified that the Valium was classified as a dangerous drug 1 and that amphetamines were in penalty group 3. 2
Appellant asserts on appeal that use of the pills at trial was improper introduction of a collateral offense and that they were introduced solely to prejudice the jury against appellant. The State contends that the pills were admissible as res gestae of the arrest.
In Riles v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 557 S.W.2d 95, this Court quoted from Young v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 164, 261 S.W.2d 836, where it stated:
Evidence of the commission of other offenses is admissible to establish identity of the person or crime, intent, motive, system, when put in issue, or as part of the res gestae. 3 Cameron v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 530 S.W.2d 841. The justification for introduction of an extraneous offense must be carefully examined because of the potential for prejudice that exists.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McInnis v. State
...the arrest of the appellant, such evidence was not res gestae of the arrest, nor was it admitted on that ground. See Heflin v. State, 574 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). The photograph of the used condom was connected in no way to the appellant, the offense, or even the date of the offense. E......
-
Maynard v. State
...Sanders v. State, 604 S.W.2d 108 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Saunders v. State, 572 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). We stated in Heflin v. State, 574 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.Cr.App.1978): "The general rule in all English speaking jurisdictions is that an accused is entitled to be tried on the accusation made ......
-
Maddox v. State
...value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial potential. 3 E.g., Smith v. State, 646 S.W.2d 452 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Heflin v. State, 574 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Gaston v. State, 574 S.W.2d 120 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). As in the instant case, since evidence of the arrest happens to coincide......
-
Miller v. State, 13-83-062-CR
...the fact that the pistol was concealed on appellant's person would seem to mitigate in favor of admissibility. See Heflin v. State, 574 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). We perceive an analogy between this case and authority holding that evidence showing escape and flight is generally admissi......