Nelson v. State
| Decision Date | 12 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 59720,No. 3,59720,3 |
| Citation | 607 S.W.2d 554 |
| Parties | Larry Darnell NELSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
James Schweitzer, Galveston, for appellant.
James F. Hury, Jr., Dist. Atty. and David P. Walker, Asst. Dist. Atty., Galveston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before ROBERTS, ODOM and CLINTON, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for burglary of a habitation. Following appellant's plea of "true" to the allegations of a prior enhancing conviction, the court assessed punishment at twenty-five years.
Appellant, by way of original and supplemental briefs, raised five grounds of error, however, during oral argument he abandoned his fourth ground. His first three grounds of error essentially attack the trial court's admission of evidence stemming from an allegedly illegal search conducted by a private citizen. To support this contention he cites the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution, and Article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Fourth Amendment does not require the exclusion of incriminating evidence illegally obtained through a search by a private citizen. Bodde v. State, 568 S.W.2d 344, 353. An examination of the record reveals that neither the motion to suppress nor trial objection invoked the laws of this State; rather, appellant sought only that protection provided by federal constitutional law.
Appellant may not, for the first time on appeal, urge error not raised at trial. The error presented on appeal must be the same as the objection raised before the trial court. There was no objection invoking the laws of this State; hence that error is not presented for review. See, e. g. Simpkins v. State, 590 S.W.2d 129; Bouchillon v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 540 S.W.2d 319; Lejeune v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 538 S.W.2d 775.
In the fifth ground of error it is contended that the trial court erred when it allowed the jury, which had previously retired to deliberate, "to hear the testimony of (appellant) from the court reporter's stenographic notes of a prior hearing on a motion to suppress, 1 thereby violating (appellant's) right to due process ... and the right against self incrimination." The testimony addressed by this ground of error was adduced at trial during cross-examination by the State, and is as follows:
After the jury began deliberations at the guilt stage, they twice requested to have read that "portion of transcript that refers to April court hearing when Nelson was on the witness stand." The record then indicates that the testimony adduced at trial, which we have set out above, was in fact reread to the jury following each request, over defense objection. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 394, 88 S.Ct. 967, 976, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, relied on by appellant, stands for the proposition that as a matter of federal constitutional law, when a defendant testifies in support of a motion to suppress...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eisenhauer v. State
...argument covers some, but not all, of the grounds raised in the motion. This is not like the situation presented in Nelson v. State, 607 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), in which this Court held the State law grounds urged by the defendant for the first time on appeal had not been properly pre......
-
State v. $30,660.00
... ... We must assume that the return of unlawfully seized property is a remedy available pursuant to article 59.03 because the State has waived any challenge it may have had to such a procedure. See Fortune Prod. Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 52 S.W.3d 671, 681 (Tex. 2000); Nelson v. State, 607 S.W.2d 554, ... 136 S.W.3d 405 ... 555 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) ("Appellant may not, for the first time on appeal, urge error not raised at trial."); City of Port Isabel v. Shiba, 976 S.W.2d 856, 860-61 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (upholding the trial court's award of ... ...
-
State v. Schultz
...Douglas, 66 Cal.App.3d 998, 136 Cal.Rptr. 358 (Cal.Ct.App.1977); Gray v. State, 43 Md.App. 238, 403 A.2d 853 (1979); Nelson v. State, 607 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.Crim.App.1980).1 State ex rel. Goodchild v. Burke, 27 Wis.2d 244, 265, 133 N.W.2d 753 (1965).2 State v. Cleveland, 118 Wis.2d 615, 632, 3......
-
Vanderbilt v. State
...raised for the first time on appeal. An error presented on appeal must be the same as the objection raised at trial. E.g., Nelson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 607 S.W.2d 554; Simpkins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 590 S.W.2d 129; McIlveen v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 559 S.W.2d 815. The error urged was not pr......
-
Arrests
...defendant takes the stand at trial he may be impeached with his suppression hearing testimony if he testifies contrary. Nelson v. State, 607 S.W.2d 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Upon the request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court shall state its essen- 1-29 ......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...defendant takes the stand at trial he may be impeached with his suppression hearing testimony if he testifies contrary. Nelson v. State, 607 S.W.2d 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). SEARCH AND SEIZURE: PROPERTY §2:86 Tൾඑൺඌ Cඋංආංඇൺඅ Lൺඐඒൾඋ’ඌ Hൺඇൽൻඈඈ 2-64 §2:85.1 Form: Motion to Suppress Physical ......
-
Arrests
...defendant takes the stand at trial he may be impeached with his suppression hearing testimony if he testifies contrary. Nelson v. State, 607 S.W.2d 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Upon the request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court shall state its essential fi......
-
Arrests
...defendant takes the stand at trial he may be impeached with his suppression hearing testimony if he testifies contrary. Nelson v. State, 607 S.W.2d 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Upon the request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court shall state its essential fi......