Heltzel v. State, 43292
Decision Date | 27 January 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 43292,43292 |
Citation | 462 S.W.2d 289 |
Parties | Dorothy Kate HELTZEL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Emmett Colvin, Jr., Dallas, for appellant.
Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING
The prior opinion is withdrawn.
The offense is burglary; the punishment, eight years.
No grounds of error are set forth in a brief filed in the trial court as required by Article 40.09, Sec. 9, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. However, the appellant's contention, which was raised for the first time in a brief filed in this court, will be considered as unassigned error pursuant to Article 40.09, Sec. 13, V.A.C.C.P. Dodd v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 149; and Johnson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 906.
The appellant contends that her conviction is void for the reason that the search of the automobile which she had been driving was illegal and fruits of that search were inadmissible in evidence.
The record reflects that prior to any mention of the search in question or the fruits thereof, by the state, counsel for the appellant elicited from Officer Norman of the Dallas Police Department the following testimony:
'Q. Did you talk to her--Was the automobile ever searched in front of the building?
'A. Yes.
'Q. Were you present?
'A. Pardon?
'Q. Were you present while it was searched?
'A. Yes.
'Q. Did you ever talk to Mrs. Heltzel after that?
'A. Yes.
'Q. After the automobile was searched and after Mrs. Heltzel and the car was in the front, did you ever ask her if she had anything to do with breaking and entering that shopping center?
'A. On the way downtown, sir, I did.
'Q. What was her reply?
'A. She said, 'No.'
'MR. HENDERSON: I believe that is all.'
Any objection which appellant might have to the admission of evidence of the fruits of the search was waived when testimony about the same search was first elicited on cross-examination by appellant's own counsel. 56 Tex.Jur.2d, Trial, Sec. 158; Brown v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 457 S.W.2d 917, and cases cited therein.
The appellant's ground of error is overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McClure v. State, 62125
...2 --Dodd v. State, 436 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Johnson v. State, 436 S.W.2d 906, 909 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Heltzel v. State, 462 S.W.2d 289, 290 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Stoddard v. State, 475 S.W.2d 744, 746 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); and Peoples v. State, 477 S.W.2d 889 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) are but a f......
-
Stoddard v. State
...the issuance of the warrant. This ground of error will be considered as unassigned error. Art. 40.09, § 13, V.A.C.C.P.; Heltzel v. State, 462 S.W.2d 289 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Dodd v. State, 436 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Johnson v. State, 436 S.W.2d 906 Captain Harvey Gann and other officer......
-
Phillips v. State
...40.09, Sec. 13, V.A.C.C.P.; Kaser v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 505 S.W.2d 806; Stoddard v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 475 S.W.2d 744; Heltzel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 462 S.W.2d 289. The record reflects that Phillips also made appropriate objection to such This case involves a seizure of contraband; this ......
-
Robinson v. State, 47463
...to the lineup was waived when the same was elicited by his own counsel, Brown v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 457 S.W.2d 917; Heltzel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 462 S.W.2d 289; 56 T.J.2d Trial, Sec. 158, and when the State was allowed to pursue the same in detail without objection. Garcia v. State, Tex.......