Martin v. State, 57576
| Decision Date | 28 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 57576,No. 2,57576,2 |
| Citation | 577 S.W.2d 490 |
| Parties | Calvin MARTIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Kenneth A. Back, Amarillo, for appellant.
Thomas A. Curtis, Dist. Atty. and John Loudder Davis, Asst. Dist. Atty., Amarillo, for the State.
Before DOUGLAS, ROBERTS and ODOM, JJ.
Calvin Martin appeals his conviction for aggravated rape. The jury, upon hearing his plea of true to a prior conviction, assessed his punishment at twenty-five years.
Appellant contends that the court erred in denying his requests for information. Specifically, he complains of the court's denial of access to a witness' statement, the prosecutrix' grand jury testimony and the prosecutor's jury cards. The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged.
On January 24, 1976, a Saturday night, the prosecutrix and her husband were in the Kitty Kat Lounge in Amarillo. The prosecutrix went to the ladies' room. Appellant forced his way into the ladies' room and choked her twice into unconsciousness. After she revived, he raped her.
Martin first contends the court erred in denying his request for the prosecutrix' husband's statement to use in cross-examining him. After the husband's direct testimony, appellant made a timely request for his prior written statement. This was denied because, as a recorded conversation at the bench indicated, the court felt that appellant was not entitled to the statement unless the witness used it to refresh his memory. After the husband was cross-examined but before the State rested the appellant was furnished with the statement.
It was error not to allow appellant to examine the witness' statement; there is no requirement that the witness use that statement to refresh his memory. Myre v. State, 545 S.W.2d 820 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); see Gaskin v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 7, 353 S.W.2d 467 (1962). However, such a good faith error does not require reversal where no harm is demonstrated. Myre v. State, supra. Appellant was furnished with the statement and did not recall the witness. He makes no attempt in his brief to demonstrate actual harm. The statement is not in the record for our review. Under these facts, we conclude that the error was not reversible.
Martin next contends that he was not permitted to inspect the grand jury testimony of the prosecutrix. Inspection of grand jury testimony, upon request, is within the discretion of the court; such inspection should be allowed when the State uses such testimony or when appellant can show a particularized need. Garcia v. State, 454 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). Of course, appellant must show that the testimony was recorded. Nelson v. State,511 S.W.2d 18 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
In the instant case, there is no showing that the prosecutor used the grand jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McManus v. State
...exists or where a "particularized need" is shown so as to outweigh the traditional policy of grand jury secrecy. Martin v. State, 577 S.W.2d 490 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Mott v. State, 543 S.W.2d 623 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). Nelson v. State, 511 S.W.2d 18 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Brown v. State, 475 S.W.2d 9......
-
Armstrong v. State
...Linebarger v. State, 469 S.W.2d 165, 167 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Enriquez v. State, 429 S.W.2d 141, 145 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Martin v. State, 577 S.W.2d 490, 491 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Redd v. State, 578 S.W.2d 129, 131 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). The conclusion of the court of appeals is certainly consistent ......
-
Etheridge v. State
...State has no obligation to furnish counsel for the accused with information he has in regard to prospective jurors." Martin v. State, 577 S.W.2d 490, 491 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). Further, if appellant believed that the information should be public, section eight of the Open Records Act provided......
-
Storey v. The State Of Tex.
...obligation to furnish counsel for the accused with information he has in regard to prospective jurors.'" (quoting Martin v. State, 577 S.W.2d 490, 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979))), superceded by statute on other grounds as stated in Diaz v. State, 110 S.W.3d 181, 184 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003......
-
Discovery
...The state has no obligation under the discovery statutes to furnish its prior jury service information to the defense. Martin v. State, 577 S.W.2d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Prosecutors are not obligated to turn over juror information that is available to the defense on voir dire. Armstron......
-
Table of Cases
...Dist.] 2007, no pet .), §§15:24.1.3, 15:24.2.1 Martin v. State, 541 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976), §§15:120, 21:20.7 Martin v. State, 577 S.W.2d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979), §§13:73, 14:93 Martin v. State, 630 S.W.2d 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982), §4:74 Martin v. State, 819 S.W.2d 552 (Tex.......
-
Discovery
...The state has no obligation under the discovery statutes to furnish its prior jury service information to the defense. Martin v. State, 577 S.W.2d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Prosecutors are not obligated to turn over juror information that is available to the defense on voir dire. Armstron......
-
Discovery
...The state has no obligation under the discovery statutes to furnish its prior jury service information to the defense. Martin v. State, 577 S.W.2d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Prosecutors are not obligated to turn over juror information that is available to the defense on voir dire. Armstron......