Johnson v. State, 43383
| Citation | 462 S.W.2d 955 |
| Decision Date | 20 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 43383,43383 |
| Parties | Clavis Charles JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Melvyn Carson Bruder, Dallas (Court Appointed on Appeal Only), for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., John B. Tolle, Harry J. Schulz, Jr., W. T. Westmoreland, Jr., and Edgar A. Mason, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is burglary; the punishment, two (2) years.
Appellant's first ground of error arises out of an ingenious contention. He asserts 'the trial court reversibly erred in not granting the appellant's motion, filed prior to trial, to require the state to furnish persons to appear in a multi-person show up at the time of any in-court identification by state's witnesses.'
When being questioned from our bench during argument, counsel was asked where this group of persons might be found. He answered that in Dallas County there were always a number of prisoners that could be brought into the courtroom. Counsel conceded that his suggestion might be more difficult to effectuate in a rural county. Counsel argued that all witnesses who would identify the defendant at the trial should be called in one at a time to view this in-court group. At this time each would identify the defendant; the remainder of his testimony would be had in the normal sequence. In all deference to counsel, we do not read United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, as he does. This contention is overruled.
His second ground of error is that the court improperly sustained a hearsay objection to certain testimony. In the absence of the jury, the question was permitted. The question was, 'Mrs. Robinson, when you spoke to Betty Johnson, at that time did you tell her that if she would give you two hundred dollars that you wouldn't testify against Clavis Johnson?' The witness answered, 'No.' Clearly, the answer he received was not helpful to him.
Later in the trial when the witness Betty Johnson was testifying, she was asked the question, 'Have you talked with Retha Robinson since February the 12th, 1969?' She answered, 'Yes sir, I have.' Appellant's lawyer requested permission to ask Miss Johnson the nature of the conversation. The State objected that it was hearsay and the court sustained it. Appellant's trial counsel failed to show what her answer would have been and therefore nothing is presented for review.
Appellant's third ground of error relates to two pictures of the appellant shown to witness Foster Golden on the day of the trial. The police brought two pictures to Golden an hour prior to his testifying. They asked him if he could identify 'the man' and the witness said he could. They then presented two pictures of appellant to him and he identified both of them as being 'the man.' The following occurred when Golden was cross-examined by the defense counsel:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. State, 44142
...of the law-breaker given by the witness. Simmons v. United States, supra; Green v. State, supra; Johnson v. State, supra; Johnson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 462 S.W.2d 955. The record in the instant case reflects that eight black and white mug shots of like size composed the photographic array ......
-
Perez v. State, No. 01-05-00611-CR (Tex. App. 5/25/2006)
...to hold an in-court lineup or to force the state to furnish multi-person confrontations during the trial"); Johnson v. State, 462 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971) (upholding denial of motion for "multi-person show up at the time of any in-court identification," noting such request to ......
-
Hicks v. State, 46087
...sought in accordance with the above procedure, appellant has failed to preserve any error for the court to review. Johnson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 462 S.W.2d 955; Burton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 471 S.W.2d 817; Alexander v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 476 S.W.2d 10; Lee v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.......
-
Johnson v. State
...(Vernon 1979). Therefore, Appellant's grounds of error numbers four and five present nothing for review. See Johnson v. State, 462 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex.Crim.App.1971). These grounds of error are In his sixth ground of error, Appellant urges that, due to the errors urged in grounds three thr......