Moreno v. State
| Decision Date | 22 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. B14-85-266-CR,B14-85-266-CR |
| Citation | 711 S.W.2d 382 |
| Parties | Ricardo MORENO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. (14th Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Robert G. Turner, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Timothy G. Taft, Elaine Bratton, Houston, for appellee.
Before PAUL PRESSLER, SEARS and CANNON, JJ.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of attempted capital murder of a peace officer and was sentenced to twenty-three years in the Texas Department of Corrections. Appellant brings five grounds of error on appeal. We sustain all five grounds of error, and we reverse the conviction of the trial court.
Officer Salazar of the Houston Police Department was called to an apartment complex for an unrelated matter. While at the complex, the officer's attention was directed to another disturbance involving appellant. The officer confronted appellant, who was intoxicated and brandishing a hunting knife, and ordered him to drop the knife. Appellant walked towards the officer shouting, ). The officer testified that he took several steps backward with his pistol drawn and repeatedly ordered appellant to drop the knife. Appellant refused and subsequently lunged at the officer or took a final step towards the officer, at which time the officer shot appellant twice.
Appellant testified that he had consumed a large quantity of beer and some Mexican whiskey. After drinking the whiskey, appellant's next recollection was waking up in the hospital with bandages. He did not remember having a knife, confronting Officer Salazar or being shot.
Appellant contends in ground of error one that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for attempted capital murder. We agree. When considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, Hall v. State, 418 S.W.2d 810 (Tex.Crim.App.1967), we find the evidence will not support a conviction for attempted capital murder. Although intent to commit murder may be presumed from the use of a deadly weapon per se, Lewis v. State, 486 S.W.2d 104 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), a knife is not a deadly weapon per se. Id. at 106. Further, when the weapon used is not a deadly weapon per se, we must look to the circumstances surrounding the incident and determine the intent of the actor and the manner in which the weapon was used to determine whether it is a deadly weapon. Id. A review of all the cases dealing with a knife as a deadly weapon reveals they clearly show an intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, and in every case the victim suffered injuries from the manner and use of the knife in question. We have found no case law to support the state's position that the mere brandishing of the weapon elevates the status of the knife to that of a deadly weapon.
In the present case, Officer Salazar is a much larger man than appellant (appellant is four feet six inches tall). There was no testimony that appellant at any time threatened to cause serious bodily injury or death to the officer. Further, there is no testimony that the knife was used in any manner that would show the intent on the part of appellant to murder Officer Salazar. In fact, appellant in his drunken state was requesting that the officer kill him. Ground of error one is sustained.
In grounds of error two and three appellant argues that the trial court erred in allowing the state to cross-examine appellant about prior acts of misconduct. In cross-examining appellant, the state asked if he had previously owned guns or fired guns within the apartment complex. Appellant objected on the ground that these other acts were irrelevant to the charge for which appellant was being tried. The trial court overruled the objections, and the state continued asking questions about prior acts of misconduct which were not material or relevant to this charge of attempted capital murder. The appellant responded that he did not recall having fired a gun within the apartment complex. The state then brought in rebuttal witnesses who testified, over appellant's objections, about appellant getting drunk every weekend and shooting his gun outside the apartment.
The state made no attempt to show that the line of questioning was material or relevant to the issue at hand, nor did the state show that it in any way established scheme, motive, design or intent. Article 38.29 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides in part that the fact that a defendant in a criminal case is or has been charged with the commission of a crime shall not be admissible in evidence for the purpose of impeachment unless a final conviction has resulted. In this case, appellant was not even charged with these collateral offenses, much less convicted; therefore, their use for impeachment purposes was error. Clark v. State, 693 S.W.2d 35 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, no pet.). See also Cross v. State, 586 S.W.2d 478 (Tex.Crim.App.1979), and Albrecht v. State, 486 S.W.2d 97 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). The error is further compounded when the state calls a witness to impeach the appellant on some collateral issue brought out by the state's own cross-examination of the appellant. Clark v. State, 693 S.W.2d at 38. See also Shipman v. State, 604 S.W.2d 182 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), and Hatley v. State, 533 S.W.2d 27 (Tex.Crim.App.1976). The state cannot open the door to matters not otherwise admissible, and then prove up the collateral events, unless the events themselves were independently admissible. Flannery v State, 676 S.W.2d 369 (Tex.Crim.App.1984). There can be no doubt that the probative value of any questioning of appellant concerning such collateral events was far out-weighed by its overwhelming prejudicial effect.
The state contends that the objections at time of trial were general, incomplete and did not comport with grounds of error on appeal; therefore, any error was waived. Appellant's objection was that these other acts were irrelevant to the case at hand. The state correctly points out the general rule that a party cannot complain on appeal to the overruling of a general objection or an imprecise specific objection. However, there are a number of exceptions to the general rule. One such exception exists when the correct ground of exclusion was obvious to the judge and opposing counsel. We believe the ground for exclusion of such questions and answers was open and obvious to the trial court; therefore, no waiver resulted from a general or imprecise objection. Roeder v. State, 688 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 988, 106 S.Ct. 396, 88 L.Ed.2d 349 (1985), and Zillender v. State, 557 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Crim.App.1977). Grounds of error two and three are sustained.
Appellant contends in ground of error four...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geesa v. State
...attempted capital murder in that it failed to sustain an intent on the part of accused to kill the victim. Moreno v. State, 711 S.W.2d 382, at 383-384 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th] 1986). In its petition for discretionary review the State claimed essentially that the sufficiency analysis employ......
-
Alexander v. State
...also Shipman v. State, 604 S.W.2d 182 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Hatley v. State, 533 S.W.2d 27 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). In Moreno v. State, 711 S.W.2d 382 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1986), the defendant was convicted of attempted capital murder of a police officer. The evidence showed the intoxicat......
-
Barber v. State, 6-82-080-CR
...by Judge Teague in Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2d 866, 872 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (Teague, J., concurring). In Moreno v. State, 711 S.W.2d 382 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1986), rev'd, 755 S.W.2d 866 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), the court of appeals had reviewed all of the evidence before it, weighed......
-
Moreno v. State
...Fourteenth Court of Appeals, in a published panel opinion, reversed the conviction on five separate issues. Moreno v. State, 711 S.W.2d 382 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1986). We granted the State's petition to review each of these and, after having done so, will reverse the judgment of ......