Hulin v. State, 41796
| Decision Date | 22 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41796,41796 |
| Citation | 438 S.W.2d 551 |
| Parties | Frederick Charles HULIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Bill Cannon, Houston (Court appointed on appeal), for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Joe Maida, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is indecent exposure to a minor under the age of 16 years; the punishment, assessed by the jury, 15 years' confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.
The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction is not challenged, and we deem it unnecessary to set forth the sordid details described by the 12-year-old complaining witness, who was eleven at the time of the alleged offense.
In his sole ground of error appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a prior out of court statement of the complaining witness consistent with his testimony when such witness had not been impeached in any way, manner or form.
When the State rested its case in chief on the issue of guilt or innocence, appellant's counsel, upon demand, secured the prior statement of the complaining witness and then subsequently was handed the entire State's file apparently including the arresting police officer's report.
Appellant then recalled the complaining witness for further cross-examination and established that he had in fact given a written statement to the police approximately two hours after the alleged offense. Thereafter he attempted to show that such witness had made other and different statements inconsistent with his testimony. Upon re-direct examination the State had the complaining witness identify State's Exhibit #1 as the statement he gave the police but it was not offered.
Testifying in his own behalf appellant, a carnival worker, denied the incident occurred, and further stated he had read the statement in question, that it was not true and he did not have any idea why the boy would say 'that.'
Thereafter the State offered such exhibit into evidence expressly upon the basis of the cross-examination of the complaining witness and the appellant's testimony. The exhibit was admitted over the sole objection that the statement had not been properly proved up. 1
It is appellant's claim that by such action the State was permitted to bolster its witness by proof that he had made a statement in harmony with his trial testimony when he had not been attacked on the testimony sought to be supported. See 1 Branch's Anno.P.C.2nd Ed., Sec. 204, p. 231. See also 62 Tex.Jur.2d, Witn...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Bryan v. State
...of good character for truth and veracity." See also Adams v. State, 514 S.W.2d 262 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); see generally, Hulin v. State, 438 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Brown v. State, 475 S.W.2d 938 In the instant case, Jackson was impeached as to several important matters by evidence of his......
-
Long v. State
...as such it was unquestionably bolstering of an unimpeached witness. Pless v. State, 576 S.W.2d 83 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Cf. Hulin v. State, 438 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). So, before the appellant was able to cross-examine the child the State introduced into evidence the ex parte, recorded, ......
-
Watts v. State
...S.W.2d 946, 949 (1944). Thus, the State may not bolster a witness simply because he is contradicted on other matters, Hulin v. State, 438 S.W.2d 551, 552 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); nor because the witness' unimpeached testimony may be disbelieved, Brown v. State, 403 S.W.2d 411, 412 (Tex.Cr.App.196......
-
Shannon v. State, 54806
...contention he now makes on appeal; nothing is presented for review. Campbell v. State, 521 S.W.2d 636 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Hulin v. State, 438 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Spencer v. State, 438 S.W.2d 109 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). We do not agree with appellant's assertion that the testimony was so......