Martinez v. State, 46933
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | DOUGLAS |
| Citation | 507 S.W.2d 223 |
| Parties | Jimmy A. MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 46933,46933 |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1974 |
Page 223
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Rehearing Denied April 10, 1974.
Don Gladden and Marvin Collins, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Tim Curry, Dist. Atty., W. E. Roberts, R. J. Adcock, and J. J. Heinemann, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Buddy Stevens, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DOUGLAS, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of murder with malice. The jury assessed punishment at 199 years.
On December 9, 1970, Lester Harvey, the manager of the Ace-High Liquor Store in Fort Worth, was killed during a robbery. The cash register was taken at the time of the offense and subsequently found
Page 225
by police officers as a result of an oral confession made by the appellant.Appellant's only contention with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence is that there is no proof to show that the deceased was killed 'by cutting and stabbing him with a broken bottle' as alleged in the indictment. The appellant argues that the State's evidence shows that a knife was used. He relies primarily on the alleged variance in Detective Sinclair's version of the oral confession at the hearing on his motion for discovery and the trial on the merits.
Detective Sinclair testified at the trial that the appellant had stated: '. . . he started jabbing him (the deceased) with a broken bottle.' The version contained in the State's answer to the motion for discovery was that the appellant 'indicated that he kept hitting the man with the broken bottle until he fell.'
The use of the words hitting or jabbing is of little or no importance. If the proof showed that the deceased died as a result of stabbing or cutting with a broken bottle then this would be sufficient. The appellant admitted to Detective Sinclair that he used a broken bottle.
The question remaining to be answered is whether the medical examiner's testimony shows that the deceased was killed by a knife or by a broken bottle. Appellant points to the following portion of Dr. Gwozdz's testimony on cross-examination:
'Q. . . . Back to the wound number four in the upper chest there. I believe you said in your report and you testified here it was made by a sharp flat instrument, is that true?
'A. Right.
'Q. So, then wounds number three at the neck and four in the chest could be consistent with a knife type wound or a flat sharp instrument type wound, is that correct?
'A. Any flat sharp instrument.
'Q. Yes, sir, and that could be a knife, is that true?
'A. Could be.
'Q. As well as it could have been a bottle or anything else?
'A. This is correct.'
Dr. Gwozdz testified that the wounds could have been caused by glass. This, in connection with the oral confession, is sufficient for the jury to find that the deceased died as a result of cutting or stabbing with a broken bottle as alleged in the indictment.
Next, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it failed to conduct a hearing to determine his competence to stand trial. Appellant's counsel requested and the court so approved an order for a psychiatrist to evaluate the appellant. The record is silent as to the court-appointed psychiatrist's findings. Further, counsel did not re-urge his request for a pre-trial sanity hearing nor did he object to the lack of findings or formal determination at the start of the trial on the merits. In fact, counsel announced ready and the appellant personally entered his own plea.
Appellant, by announcing that he was ready and entering his plea without any suggestion of insanity to the court, waived his right to a separate pre-trial hearing. Zapata v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 493 S.W.2d 801; Boss v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 489 S.W.2d 580.
Complaint is made that the trial court erred in denying his request for the inspection of the grand jury testimony. He argues that there may have been a discrepancy in the testimony of certain witnesses; therefore, he is entitled to the grand jury testimony. We have examined the record and do not find that the appellant has
Page 226
shown any particularized need nor has he shown nor does the record reflect any suppression or attempted suppression of evidence.In the absence of any showing of a particularized need for such record, the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion. Bryant v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 423 S.W.2d 320.
The complaint that it was error for the trial court to deny his motion for a copy of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Livingston v. State, 69477
...go to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence. See Garza v. State, supra; Valenciano v. State, supra; Martinez v. State, 507 S.W.2d 223 The record also reflects that Morton testified his identification of appellant was based on both his observations during the robbery and his v......
-
McManus v. State, 58886
...court abused its discretion in refusing to order its production. See Mott v. State, supra; Brown v. State, supra; Martinez v. State, 507 S.W.2d 223 Further, we have examined the sealed testimony, and conclude that such testimony was entirely consistent with the witness' testimony at trial. ......
-
Crane v. State, 69977
...trial court is under no obligation to conduct such a hearing. Perry v. State, 703 S.W.2d 668, 672 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Martinez v. State, 507 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 969, 95 S.Ct. 234, 42 L.Ed.2d 186 (1974). A conviction based on eyewitness identification at ......
-
Garza v. State, 60426
...weight to be given the evidence and not to its admissibility. Valenciano v. State, 511 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Martinez v. State, 507 S.W.2d 223 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Furthermore, while the panel opinion notes that each witness gave a positive in-court identification, it cannot be argued......