Kerrigan v. State, 30356
| Decision Date | 11 February 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 30356,30356 |
| Citation | 321 S.W.2d 884,167 Tex.Crim. 601 |
| Parties | Thomas KERRIGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
M. Gabriel Nahas, Jr., King C. Haynie, Houston, for appellant.
Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White and Gus J. Zgourides, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is robbery; the punishment, 10 years.
Prosecutrix testified that she was employed as a barmaid at the Jay Bar in Houston, that the appellant had been a customer at the bar a number of times prior to the day charged in the indictment and on that night as she was preparing to close he was her only customer, that as she turned her back to him he hit her over the head with a beer bottle, slapped her, and threatened her until, through fear, she opened the cash register, from which he took the day's receipts. She stated that, following the robbery, he bound her and left her lying in a back hallway while he went to the front, turned out the lights, and in a few minutes returned to where she was lying and forcibly ravised her. She stated that three months later she saw the appellant in another bar and had him arrested.
Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, denied the robbery and rape, and testified that he had never been in the Jay Bar in his life.
The State, on rebuttal, called another barmaid at the Jay Bar, and she testified that the appellant had frequented the place and was there when she got off duty on the day charged in the indictment.
The jury resolved the conflict in the evidence against the appellant, and we find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction. We shall discuss the contentions advanced in the brief.
During his cross-examination of the appellant, the prosecutor requested that he bare his teeth to the jury in order that they might see a dental plate, which was a means of identification; the appellant replied that he did not normally look like that, and the prosecutor said, 'You don't normally rape people?' to which the appellant replied, 'I never have.' Objection was sustained, and the jury were instructed to disregard, but motion for mistrial was overruled.
Later on, the prosecutor, during the course of an objection, asserted to the court that they were in the trial of a rape case and, when being corrected, stated that he meant robbery; and the objection to his original remark was sustained.
It is the appellant's contention that no evidence of or comment concerning the rape was proper in this trial for robbery. We cannot bring ourselves to agree with such a position. These two offenses were so interwoven as to be parts of the same transaction. In McCoy v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 309, 162 S.W.2d 976, 977, in holding that the theft of an automobile and a subsequent robbery by the same parties the same right were parts of one continuous transaction, this Court quoted from Texas Jurisprudence as follows: 'The fact that the development of a given...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maldonado v. State, 43818
...to the introduction of the said testimony and no request was made to strike the same. Therefore, there is no error. Kerrigan v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 601, 321 S.W.2d 884. Further, the testimony was merely cumulative to that given by Officers D. W. Bransom and Jack Cox, of the Narcotics Secti......
-
Pentecost v. Estelle, 78-1068
...E. g., Cavett v. State, 505 S.W.2d 289 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Nash v. State, 467 S.W.2d 414 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Kerrigan v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 601, 321 S.W.2d 884 (1959). This circuit has previously determined that the admission of an extraneous offense into evidence is constitutionally permis......
-
Nash v. State
...of the same transaction. The evidence sought to be excluded was admissible under the so called res gestae rule. See Kerrigan v. State (167 Tex.Cr.R. 601), 321 S.W.2d 884, and cases cited.' In 4 Branch's Ann.P.C.2d Ed., Sec. 2255, page 618, it is written: '* * * where the offense is one cont......
-
Phelper v. State
...was clearly a part of the res gestae and admissible as such. Fite v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 279, 290 S.W.2d 897; Kerrigan v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 601, 321 S.W.2d 884; Bills v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 369, 327 S.W.2d 751. Proof of the identity of appellant's wife and Stockwell in the pictures was......