Hughes v. State
| Decision Date | 13 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 34685,34685 |
| Parties | Robert O. HUGHES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jacko Hargrove (On Appeal Only), Houston, for appellant.
Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., Thomas C. Dunn, Assts. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is murder; the punishment, 30 years.
The undisputed evidence, including the testimony of appellant, shows that at about 11 o'clock P.M. on August 3, 1961, just outside Katy's Lunchroom, where lunches and beer were sold and pool games were played, appellant shot and killed the deceased.
The state's evidence was that appellant, who was carrying a pistol, cursed a cousin of the deceased and the manager told appellant to leave. As he was leaving he 'bumped into' the deceased, who was shooting pool; that the deceased asked appellant, 'Why did you bump into me?' and appellant replied, 'Come outside and I will show you'; that the deceased started outside, still carrying the pool stick or cue, and just as he got outside the appellant shot him; that appellant then stood in the doorway of the lunchroom and said 'I am going to kill all of you', and fired several shots into the lunchroom.
The jury rejected appellant's claim that he shot deceased without intending to kill him and in self-defense.
No formal bills of exception were filed.
The sole ground for reversal is presented by informal bill reserved in the statement of facts. It relates to the denial of appellant's request for a prior statement of the witness Richard Johnson, after he had testified as to the shooting of the deceased and had further testified that one of the bullets fired into the lunchroom hit his shirt pocket in which he had a dime. The dime which was claimed to have deflected the bullet was introduced in evidence.
Under the holdings of this Court in Gaskin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 353 S.W.2d 467; Martinez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 354 S.W.2d 936; and Pruitt v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 355 S.W.2d 528 () the appellant was entitled to inspect the statement after the witness had testified and to use it for the purpose of cross-examination, and the court was in error in denying the request therefor made after the witness had testified on direct examination.
Under the same authorities, reversal is not called for unless it be shown that harm or prejudice to appellant resulted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Corbett v. State
...on appeal by the court, 3 and it is now before us on appeal. Cf. Rodriguez v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 540, 360 S.W.2d 406; Hughes v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 441, 358 S.W.2d 386; Martinez v. State, Having carefully examined the witness' statement and compared it to his testimony in the trial, we f......
-
Sewell v. State, 35472
...332, 350 S.W.2d 203; Martinez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 354 S.W.2d 936; Pruitt v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 355 S.W.2d 528; Hughes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 358 S.W.2d 386; Rodriguez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 360 S.W.2d 406; Aguillar v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 362 S.W.2d 111. For similar holding under the Jen......
-
Campos v. State, 43851
...rule,' Martinez v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 186, 354 S.W.2d 936; Pruitt v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 187, 355 S.W.2d 528; Hughes v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 441, 358 S.W.2d 386, and asked for less than he was entitled to in only requesting that the trial judge make an in-camera inspection. Even though t......
-
Rodriguez v. State
...report reveals no inconsistency between the report and the testimony given by the police officers upon the trial. In Hughes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 358 S.W.2d 386, we held that the trial court had the authority to make a statement a part of the record on appeal by incorporating it in the sta......