Kalinec v. State, 46532
| Citation | 500 S.W.2d 146 |
| Decision Date | 10 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 46532,46532 |
| Parties | Henry KALINEC, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Richard L. Petronella, Houston, for appellant.
Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
JACKSON, Commissioner.
The conviction was for murder with malice by a jury on a plea of not guilty; the punishment, 40 years.
The record shows that appellant killed Jean Green by stabbing her with a butcher knife. After his indictment, appellant filed a motion to have a pre-trial determination of his sanity under Art. 46.02, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., supported by the affidavit of his father. Such a hearing was held, the jury found him to be presently insane and that he required hospitalization. Accordingly, on April 16, 1971, the trial judge committed appellant to the Rusk State Hospital 'until he becomes sane.' On November 23, 1971, the Superintendent of the Rusk State Hospital certified to the trial judge that appellant was presently sane. On December 6, 1971, a hearing with the aid of a jury was held on the restoration of appellant's sanity, in which he was found to be presently sane.
Ground of error number one advanced by appellant is that the court erred in charging the jury in the restoration of sanity hearing when the jury was told:
'The burden of proof is upon defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he is now sane, and unless you believe from a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is now sane, you will find him insane and so state in your verdict.'
It is very plausibly argued that the burden of proof was thus misplaced. No objection to this charge was made.
It has been decided by this Court that no appeal lies from a judgment rendered in a preliminary trial on the issue of insanity, and any claimed error therein cannot be brought to us after trial and conviction of the offense charged. For this reason, we decline to discuss the contention made in ground of error number one, and overrule it. Peach v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 498 S.W.2d 192, (1973); Schoier v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 480 S.W.2d 657; Rounsavall v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 480 S.W.2d 696; Martin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 475 S.W.2d 265; Taylor v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 420 S.W.2d 601; Pena v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 406, 320 S.W.2d 355; Ex parte Hodges, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 433, 314 S.W.2d 581.
For his second contention, appellant urges us to reverse because the court admitted in evidence at the trial on the merits four...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. State
...Tex.Cr.App., 538 S.W.2d 101; Hassler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 473 S.W.2d 513; Vardas v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 518 S.W.2d 826; Kalinec v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 146, and cases there cited. A careful reading of the leading authorities generally relied upon as the historical basis of such ......
-
Brasfield v. State
...the inflammatory aspects (if any) of the photograph are not such as to outweigh the probative value to the jury. See Kalinec v. State, 500 S.W.2d 146, 147 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). Appellant's reliance upon Terry v. State, 491 S.W.2d (Tex.Cr.App.1973), is misplaced. The photograph in this case did......
-
Moreno v. State, s. 59057
...889 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). They were not taken after an autopsy. See Terry v. State, 491 S.W.2d 161 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Kalinec v. State, 500 S.W.2d 146 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). The ground of error is Appellants also contend the court denied them the effective assistance of counsel by overruling their......
-
Hurd v. State, 48872
...certain items in the house. The photographs were fully authenticated by the testimony by State witnesses. As stated in Kalinec v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 146, '(t)his was a gruesome murder but the photographs did no more than show the facts.' We find the trial court did not abuse its......