Hill v. State, 40745

Decision Date08 November 1967
Docket NumberNo. 40745,40745
Citation420 S.W.2d 408
PartiesEarthel B. HILL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

D. C. Gandy, Fort Worth, Court Appointed on Appeal Only, for appellant.

Frank Coffey, Dist. Atty., R. J. Adcock and Gordon Gray, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ONION, Judge.

The offense is Burglary; the punishment, seven (7) years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.

Appellant initially challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction as a principal.

On the evening of August 15, 1966, Officers Means and Badalmenti, two Fort Worth City policemen, in response to an anonymous telephone call, went at approximately 9:45 p.m. to 3016 East 4th Street in Fort Worth, the home office building of the Great Court Heroines of Jericho. Upon arrival, Officer Means went to the west side and Officer Badalmenti went to the east side of the building, each proceeding along the wall to the front or northern part of the establishment. Officer Badalmenti testified that he flashed a light through the doorway leading into one of the rear rooms of the building and saw a figure inside the building run past his beam of light. Badalmenti then yelled that someone was inside, and as he approached the facade of the building he viewed a window with the glass broken out and its screen torn. Shortly thereafter both officers heard noises inside the building, heard glass breaking and then saw appellant 'stumbling, crawling, and running out of the bushes' which covered the broken window that Officer Badalmenti had previously observed.

Officer Badalmenti drew his revolver and at the officer's command the appellant halted 30 or 40 feet from the bushes from which he had emerged. The appellant appeared to be nervous and excited and kept hollering 'don't shoot, don't shoot.' Upon being handcuffed the appellant, responding to the officers' questions, denied having a weapon and related that 'just one' more man was in the building. The estimated time lapse between the detection of noises in the building by the officers and appellant's apprehension was approximately one minute. His statements to the officers followed his apprehension by 20 or 30 seconds. At the time of his arrest appellant was wearing a black leather glove on his left hand; his right hand was bare.

Officer Johnson, who arrived at the scene just as appellant was fleeing from the bushes, took custody of appellant from the other officers and searched him for weapons. He removed two sets of keys from appellant's rear pocket, and while still at the scene gave the keys 'to the lady who manages the lodge there' when she identified them.

The appellant was placed in Officer Johnson's car and remained there while the officers apprehended Charles McDonald, the man inside the building. After McDonald's arrest he and the appellant were taken to jail in separate squad cars. A subsequent search of squad car No. 313 in which McDonald had been taken to jail by Officers Means and Badalmenti revealed the righthand mate to the left-hand black glove found on the appellant. The glove had been stuffed behind the front seat where McDonald had been sitting in squad car No. 313. Both gloves were admitted into evidence.

Mrs. Esther Moore, Grand Secretary of the lodge and Office Manager, testified that she had the care, custody and control of the building in question on August 15, 1966; that she had locked and secured the building when she left that afternoon at approximately 4 p.m.; that she had received a call at 9:30 or 10 p.m. that evening and went immediately to the building.

Upon her arrival at the scene she found police officers present and she opened the front door. It appears that the doors to the building were 'jimmy-proof' and were all still locked. Mrs. Moore observed that the window previously described, as well as a smaller window in the kitchen, was broken. She found that the file cabinets had been ransacked with papers scattered on the floor, the kitchen oven door was open and oven racks were on the floor, and keys from prior locks on the building which she had seen in a top desk drawer the day before were missing. She related that this was not the condition in which she had left the building, and that she had not given the appellant or any other person permission to break and enter the premises or take property therefrom.

She related that missing keys were returned to her at the scene that night by one of the police officers after she had identified them.

The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence on his behalf.

The court charged the jury on the law of principals and circumstantial evidence and authorized the conviction of appellant if the jury found him guilty of the burglary charged 'acting either alone or as a principal.'

The evidence clearly reflects that a burglary was committed, which fact appellant concedes. This evidence when considered together with (1) the admission of appellant showing in effect his knowledge of a burglary in progress, (2) his flight from the scene, and (3) all the other circumstances including the discovery of the keys from the buildings on appellant's person, as well as the matching gloves, is sufficient to support appellant's conviction. See Middleton v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 307, 217 S.W. 1046.

In view of the evidence discussed above, we find no merit in appellant's claim that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • State v. Everett
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 5, 1968
    ...made under such circumstances are not rendered inadmissible because defendant had not received the Miranda warnings. Hill v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 420 S.W.2d 408; Morris v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 14, 246 S.W.2d 184. Police were not then conducting an incustody III. On cross-examination defendan......
  • Warren v. State, 48782
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • October 9, 1974
    ...is admissible in evidence under the provisions of Article 38.22(1)(f) even though made in response to questions. See Hill v. State, 420 S.W.2d 408 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). The first statement by appellant that the van had not been rented that night and the third that he had no paper work on the r......
  • Rodriguez v. State, 04-81-00185-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • December 22, 1982
    ...(Tex.Cr.App.1974); Miles v. State, 488 S.W.2d 790 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Moore v. State, 440 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Hill v. State, 420 S.W.2d 408 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); and Heath v. State, 375 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.Cr.App.1964). In the alternative, the State argues that the evidence was admissible......
  • Gibbs v. Wilmeth, 52582
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 5, 1968
    ...nor to cause that degree of deliberation which would rob the statement of its spontaneity. In this connection see also Hill v. State, Tex.Crim.App., 420 S.W.2d 408, 410. The admissibility of statements as being part of the res gestae is largely within the discretion of the trial court. 8 Am......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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