Mendoza v. State, 49587
| Decision Date | 21 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 49587,49587 |
| Citation | 522 S.W.2d 898 |
| Parties | Richard MENDOZA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Kerry P. FitzGerald (Court-appointed on appeal), Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and Steve Wilensky, Jon Sparling and Don Driscoll, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
GREEN, Commissioner.
In a trial before a jury, appellant was convicted of murder with malice. Punishment was assessed at thirty years.
Appellant's sole ground of error is that the court erred in refusing to submit in its charge to the jury instructions on the law of negligent homicide.
The record reflects that in the latter part of July, 1972, Rosemary Gonzales and her six months old son, Michael Gonzales, started living with appellant. On August 18, 1972, while Rosemary was taking a bath in the bathroom across the hall from the apartment, appellant was in the bedroom with Michael. She testified as a State's witness on its case in chief that about ten minutes after she started her bath appellant came in the bathroom and told her that the baby had been hurt. On examining the child, she noticed that both of his eyes were swollen and that he had a bruise on his forehead. She and appellant took the child to Parkland Memorial Hospital, where it died that day.
Dr. Vincent Dimaio performed an autopsy on the body of Michael Gonzales August 19th. The testified that his examination disclosed that the infant had suffered one blow in the abdomen and four blows to the head, and that death was caused by a combination of the blows. He stated that these injuries were not consistent with the child being hurt as a result of a fall from a bed.
A written confession signed by appellant on August 21, 1972, was admitted in evidence without objection. In addition to the portion containing the warnings, this confession reads as follows:
Appellant in his brief argues that 'his statement that he struck the child with the back of his hand while the child was crying and that he then took the child to Parkland Memorial Hospital raises the legal issue of whether or not appellant was guilty of negligent homicide of the second degree in that he failed to exercise the proper care and caution of an ordinarily prudent person under the same or similar circumstances in hitting the child.'
Appellant admitted striking the six months old baby in the side of its head with his fist. Under the provisions of Art. 1148a, Vernon's Ann.P.C., this intentional battery of a child under 14 years of age constituted a felony offense. See Hilliard v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 513 S.W.2d 28. Art. 1241, V.A.P.C. provides:
'When one in the execution of or in attempting to execute an act made a felony by law shall kill another, though without an apparent intention to kill, the offense does not come within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meeks v. State
...of the evidence. Adams v. State, 552 S.W.2d 812 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Hanna v. State, 546 S.W.2d 318 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Mendoza v. State, 522 S.W.2d 898 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). "The State next urges the court to consider the close proximity of the appellant to the contraband, claiming that since th......
-
Frazier v. State
...value, however, and will not be considered in determining the sufficiency of the evidence. Lumpkin v. State, supra; Mendoza v. State, 522 S.W.2d 898 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). This well-established rule of evidence has been applied to probation revocation hearings. Maden v. State, 542 S.W.2d 189 (T......
-
Edwards v. State
...hearsay admitted without objection had no probative value and could not support a finding of fact or a verdict. Mendoza v. State, 522 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). However, rule 802 of the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence now states in pertinent part: "Inadmissible hearsay admitted w......
-
Gardner v. State
...applied our well established rule 4 that: "Hearsay is without probative value, even if admitted without objection. Mendoza v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 522 S.W.2d 898 [1975]; Reynolds v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 489 S.W.2d 866 [1972]. It constitutes no evidence, and will not be considered in determini......