Jackson v. State

• Citation: 477 S.W.2d 879
• Decision Date: 22 March 1972
• Docket Number: No. 44466,44466
• Parties: Effie Mae JACKSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 879

477 S.W.2d 879

Effie Mae JACKSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44466.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 22, 1972.

George S. McCarthy, Amarillo, for appellant.

Tom Curtis, Dist. Atty., Kerry Knorpp, Asst. Dist. Atty., Amarillo and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder without malice; the punishment, three (3) years.

Our prior opinion dismissing this appeal is withdrawn and appellant's motion to reinstate the appeal is granted.

The record reflects that 66 year old Effie Mae Jackson was indicted for shooting her husband with a pistol following a family argument.

Appellant first complains that certain portions of the cross-examination of her sister were improper. It is well established that a timely objection is required to preserve a point for review. Bitela v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 463 S.W.2d 738; Watkins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 411 S.W.2d 364; Kilrain v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 265, 313 S.W.2d 299; Arseneau v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 587, 171 S.W.2d 132. We fail to find any objections to the cross-examination in question and consequently nothing is presented for review. Further, the cross-examination in question presents nothing objectionable.

The record reflects that the court sustained appellant's objections to the admission of certain drawings made by officer Gray at the scene because they were not drawn to scale; i.e., the bed was not in proper proportion to the size of the room. However, the court permitted him, over objection, to reproduce the scene on the blackboard, using his original drawing for reference. The witness testified that although his original drawing and the blackboard reproduction were not done to scale, the room measurements were accurate since he took them when he arrived at the scene. Appellant contends that the court erred in permitting officer Gray to make the blackboard reproduction.

We fail to understand why the court initially refused to admit these drawings into evidence. Diagrams are admissible to explain and clarify a witness' testimony. Holding v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 460 S.W.2d 133. These drawings were not offered as exact scale replicas of the scene but were offered merely to show the layout of the apartment and make the officer's testimony clearer. Any inaccuracy in the scale of the drawings would not, under the circumstances, affect their admissibility. Chapin v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 390, 320 S.W.2d 341. Clearly then, the trial court did not err in permitting the officer to use one of the drawings to aid him in reproducing the scene on the blackboard.

Appellant next contends that 'the court erred in allowing officer Gerald E. Jacobs to testify as to ballistic distances from an object where powder burns would appear when it is uncontradicted in the record that Officer Jacobs who was not an expert as so admitted in his testimony . . .' The record reflects that appellant did not object when Jacobs testified that the bullet which killed the deceased was fired from a distance of less than six inches and,...