Linzy v. State, s. 44697--44699
| Decision Date | 15 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 44697--44699,s. 44697--44699 |
| Citation | 478 S.W.2d 950 |
| Parties | Walter Robert LINZY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Billy Ray ARMSTRONG, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Winston LaSalle WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellant. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Melvyn Carson Bruder, Dallas (on appeal by appointment), for appellants.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., W. T. Westmoreland, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DAVIS, Commissioner.
These are appeals from convictions of robbery by assault. The three appellants were tried jointly and punishment was assessed by the jury at sixty years for each of them.
The record reflects that appellants were identified as the persons who robbed, at gun point, a Tom Thumb Grocery store on Inwood Road, in Dallas, on December 11, 1969. After taking approximately Eleven Hundred Dollars, the appellants ordered the employees of the store to lie on the floor. A thirteen year old school boy testified he saw three men running from said store toward a blue Cadillac on the date in question.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged.
Appellants complain of the State's argument at the guilt phase of the trial contending that it had the effect of injecting facts into the record without appellants having the right of confrontation under Amendment VI, of the U.S. Constitution, and further, that such argument inferred that the jury had not heard other evidence which would help establish the guilt of the appellants. Appellant Wright complains that the argument suggests that appellant was engaged in an extraneous offense at the time of his arrest.
The complaint of appellants goes to the following argument of the State:
Objection was made to the argument by appellants; 'I object to the reason the testimony had to end.' The objection was sustained and the jury instructed to disregard the same. Appellant's motion for a mistrial was overruled.
Officer Cox, of the Marshall Police Department, had testified that on December 12, 1969, he stopped the appellants along with a man named Yancey in a blue Cadillac after he observed the car going around the block of a shopping center in Marshall which contained a Buddie's Super Market.
'It is the duty of trial counsel to confine their arguments to the record; reference to facts that are neither in evidence nor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. State
...State, 466 S.W.2d 317 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) (prosecutor implied that he knew more about the accused than the jury was told); Linzy v. State, 478 S.W.2d 950 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) ("that's what the officer testified to, and that's where the testimony has to end, for reasons that we can't go into"); T......
-
Nichols v. State
...Article is not a ground for excluding the testimony of a State's witness whose name was not placed on the indictment. Linzy v. State, 478 S.W.2d 950 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Jenkins v. State, 468 S.W.2d 432 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Mullins v. State, 425 S.W.2d 354 (Tex.Cr.App.1968) and Pruett v. State,......
-
Sawyers v. State
...(Tex.Cr.App.1974); Magee v. State, 504 S.W.2d 849 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Morgan v. State, 502 S.W.2d 695 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Linzy v. State, 478 S.W.2d 950 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). The proper method of pursuing an objection until an adverse ruling is to (1) object, (2) request an instruction to disreg......
-
Anderson v. State
...(Tex.Cr.App.1974); Magee v. State, 504 S.W.2d 849 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Morgan v. State, 502 S.W.2d 695 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Linzy v. State, 478 S.W.2d 950 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), unless the prosecutor subsequently attempts to circumvent the court's ruling that such argument was improper. Boyde v. St......