Mullenix v. State, 46427
| Decision Date | 19 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 46427,46427 |
| Citation | 499 S.W.2d 330 |
| Parties | Ronnie Wayne MULLENIX, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jerry J. Loftin, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Doug Crouch, Dist. Atty., Timothy E. Thompson, T. H. Haire, George McManus, and Roger W. Crampton, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., And Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This appeal is from a conviction for the offense of robbery. Punishment was assessed at thirty years.
The record reflects that the appellant and Wallace Berry Guyden robbed an employee of a cigarette vending machine vendor of approximately $800.00 and some cigarettes. The robbery occurred while the victim was in his van truck which was parked in front of a store in Ft. Worth. He was there for the purpose of collecting money and replacing cigarettes in a vending machine. The appellant grabbed the victim by his hair while Guyden held a knife to the victim's throat to accomplish the robbery.
The appellant was arrested some twenty days later when he was caught shoplifting at another store in Ft. Worth. Appellant tried to escape at the time of this arrest. The trial court did not permit the jury to hear the purpose of the shoplifting arrest, but the arrest itself and the attempted escape were introduced into evidence at the trial in the instant case to show flight.
On this appeal appellant urges four grounds of error, the first being a contention that a reputation witness was improperly impeached. The record reveals that when the questions were asked and answered no objection was interposed; hence, nothing is presented for our review. E.g., Humphrey v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 479 S.W.2d 51; Blanco v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 471 S.W.2d 70.
The second ground of error complains of the limiting charge the trial court gave the jury concerning the arrest of appellant. As heretofore pointed out, the testimony concerning appellant's arrest was offered to show flight.
Appellant objected to the inclusion in the court's charge of the following:
In 31 Tex.Jur.2d, Instructions, Sec. 146, p. 721, it is written:
'It is well established that when there is introduced evidence of another offense that might be improperly used...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. State
...the crime." Stanley v. State, 606 S.W.2d 918 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Binyon v. State, 545 S.W.2d 448 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Mullenix v. State, 499 S.W.2d 330 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); and Jackson v. State, 486 S.W.2d 764 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). A lack of positive identification of an object, such as a weapon, c......
-
Els v. State, 49072
...and reputation, the appellant waived his right to complain that the witness was not a character witness. See Mullenix v. State, 499 S.W.2d 330, 331 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Blanco v. State, 471 S.W.2d 70, 71 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); see also Piraino v. State, 415 S.W.2d 416, 417 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Holt......
-
Richardson v. State, 2-81-111-CR
...pistol was removed. The weapon with which the crime was alleged to have been committed is admissible into evidence. Mullenix v. State, 499 S.W.2d 330 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). Any lack of positive identification of the pistol merely goes to its weight rather than its admissibility. Mullenix v. Sta......
-
Webster v. State
...its weight as evidence, and not its admissibility. Chavira, supra; Dow v. State, 491 S.W.2d 917 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); Mullenix v. State, 499 S.W.2d 330 (Tex.Crim.App.1973). See also Simmons v. State, 622 S.W.2d 111 The fact that competent evidence might arouse feelings of horror and indignat......