Moore v. State
| Decision Date | 21 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 41068,41068 |
| Citation | 424 S.W.2d 443 |
| Parties | Sylvester MOORE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Alfano, Dailey & Pitchford, by Fred H. Dailey, Jr., Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James A. Brough and Ruben W. Hope, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Appellant and James Moore were jointly indicted for the offense of robbery by assault.
Upon the granting of a severance, appellant was separately tried and convicted, with punishment assessed at life imprisonment in the Texas Department of Corrections.
Four grounds of error are urged by appellant on the appeal.
He first contends that the court erred in refusing his motion for individual and separate examination of the prospective jurors.
Under the provisions of Art. 35.17--1, C.C.P., it is within the discretion of the trial judge, in a non-capital felony case, to direct that the state and the defendant conduct the voir dire examination of the prospective jurors in the presence of the entire panel. It is only in capital cases where the state has made known it will seek the death penalty that either the state or the defendant is entitled, under Art. 35.17--2, C.C.P., to examine each juror on voir dire, individually and apart from the entire panel. The ground of error is overruled.
Appellant next contends that the court erred in refusing his motion in limine #1, which was a request that he not be required to sit at the defendant's table during the time the state's witnesses were testifying and that he be allowed to sit with others in the courtroom 'so that his appearance with his counsel at the Defendant's table' would not assist the state's witnesses in identifying him.
In such motion, a further request was made by appellant 'that if the State's Counsel requires the witnesses to identify this Defendant That such identification be made when the Defendant is seated or standing with other persons of the same general age, race, and sex.' Request was also made that state's counsel be instructed 'not to point out the Defendant to the witnesses while the Defendant is in the Courtroom or to show to said witnesses photographs of this Defendant for the purpose of coaching the witnesses in order to bolster their description of the Defendant and further that the Court instruct the State's Counsel not to describe the physical appearance of this Defendant to the said witnesses.'
We know of no law which prohibits a court from requiring that a defendant sit at the counsel table with his attorney during the trial. Nor do we know of any law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Jones
...Moye v. State, 122 Ga.App. 14, 16--18, 176 S.E.2d 180; People v. Finch, 47 Ill.2d 425, 430--431, 266 N.E.2d 97; Moore v. State, 424 S.W.2d 443, 444--445 (Tex.Cr.App.); State v. Brown, 76 Wash.2d 352, 353, 458 P.2d 165; State v. Nettles, 6 WashApp. 257, 492 P.2d 567.4 General Laws c. 276, § ......
-
People v. Finch
...that does exist is contrary to the contention. (See, E.g., United States v. Moss (3d cir. 1969), 410 F.2d 386; Moore v. State of Texas (Tex.Cr.App., 1968), 424 S.W.2d 443; State v. Brown, 76 Wash.2d 352, 458 P.2d 165. Also, as we have observed, there was clearly sufficient evidence of an in......
-
People v. Clark
...v. Brown (1969), 76 Wash.2d 352, 353, 458 P.2d 165, 166; see also United States v. Moss (3rd cir. 1969), 410 F.2d 386; Moore v. Texas (Tex.Crim.App.1968), 424 S.W.2d 443. Defendant next urges that his conviction must be reversed because the assistant State's Attorney was allowed to measure ......
-
Ward v. State, 44142
...court erred in overruling his motion relating to the in-court identification procedure. Faced with an almost identical problem in Moore v. State, 424 S.W.2d 443, this court 'We know of no law which prohibits a court from requiring that a defendant sit at the counsel table with his attorney ......