Mays v. State
| Decision Date | 30 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 41511,41511 |
| Citation | 434 S.W.2d 140 |
| Parties | Billy Ray MAYS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Vincent W. Perini, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Charles Caperton, Arch Pardue, Malcolm Dade, Camille Elliott and Kerry P. FitzGerald, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is robbery with firearms; the punishment, fifty years.
The indictment charged Andrew Harris and Billy Ray Jackson with robbing L. O. Anderton on or about February 14, 1967. Upon his having suggested that his true name was Billy Ray Mays, the court ordered that the indictment and all other papers in the case where the defendant's name appeared as Billy Ray Jackson be changed to Billy Ray Mays.
Trial was before a jury on a plea of not guilty.
The state did not seek the death penalty and appellant elected to have the jury assess the punishment.
The sole ground of error set forth in appellant's brief filed in the trial court complains that the court erred in not granting a mistrial when the following occurred after the court, at appellant's request, had instructed counsel for the state to refrain from mentioning, referring to or alluding to, directly or indirectly, 'facts and circumstances tending to connect said defendant with any other extraneous crimes other than the specific offense for which he stands charged in this cause.'
On direct examination State's Witness Pat Albair, who had identified appellant and his co-defendant as the robbers, testified:
As we view the record it does not sustain the contention that the questions above quoted were improper or were propounded in bad faith, or that the rulings and instructions given by the court were not sufficient to cure the error, if any, in the asking of the questions.
The fact that the witness who identified the defendants as the robbers recognized one or both of them subsequent to the robbery was admissible. Cline v. State, 150...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frison v. State
...the witness was error, the error, if any, was cured by the court's jury instructions to disregard both question and answer. Mays v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 434 S.W.2d 140. Further, the appellants having first inquired about the fact of arrest, they are not in a position to complain if the State......
-
McKinney v. State
...to the jury to disregard both question and answer. See and compare Frison v. State, 473 S.W.2d 479 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Mays v. State, 434 S.W.2d 140 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Lambrecht v. State, 409 S.W.2d 861 Next, appellant complains that the prosecutor improperly impeached him by the use of prio......
-
Gonzalez v. State
...it might not be possible to withdraw the impression from their minds. Carter v. State, 614 S.W.2d 821 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Mays v. State, 434 S.W.2d 140 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). In the case before us, however, in complying with appellant's request to instruct the jury to disregard the alleged hears......
-
Patterson v. State
...Williams v. State, 604 S.W.2d 146 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Seaton v. State, 564 S.W.2d 721 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Mays v. State, 434 S.W.2d 140 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). We overrule appellant's eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth grounds of error. In ground of error sixteen, appellant contends that......