Ouellette v. State, 29860
| Decision Date | 04 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 29860,29860 |
| Parties | Joseph John Paul OUELLETTE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Emilio Davila, J. G. Hornberger, Laredo, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
The conviction is for the burglary of a private residence at night with the intent to commit rape; the punishment, 5 years.
The testimony of the state shows that a married woman sleeping alone was awakened about 3 a. m. by a man getting into bed with her; that she first thought it was her husband but upon touching his shoulder questioned his identity, then when she sat up she could see it was not her husband; that she screamed and as she jumped from the bed the intruder placed his hand over her mouth but soon released her and as he ran from the house he dropped several things, among which was a 'dog tag' through which he was immediately apprehended and shortly thereafter identified by the woman as the man that was in her house.
The testimony shows that the house was a private residence occupied by a family. It further shows that the house was closed and was entered by the making of a small hole in the screen door then inserting something by which the door was unlatched.
Appellant in his written statement introduced in evidence states that after he entered a house he saw a woman sleeping on a bed; that he removed his shoes and lay down on the bed but did not recall what happened except that the woman screamed several times and he ran from the house.
Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted going to a house, but states that he knocked on the door, that a woman said, 'Come in' that he opened the unlatched door and entered; that he went there for the purpose of having carnal knowledge of the woman; and that at the time he placed his arm around her they heard someone coming, she began screaming and he left.
The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.
Appellant's only complaint is to the closing argument of counsel for the state.
The record shows and the appellant admits in his brief that he did not object to the argument when it was made. No request was made for the jury to be instructed not to consider it; and no motion was made for a mistrial. The trial court was not made aware of an objection to the argument until the appellant complained thereof for the first time in his First Amended Motion for a New Trial....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mackin v. State
...the argument complained of and order a reversal of the case. King v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 508, 243 S.W.2d 846; Luellette v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 328, 314 S.W.2d 106; Wiley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 350 S.W.2d 22; Ramirez v. Acker, 134 Tex. 647, 138 S.W.2d 1054; Sutton Motor Co. v. Crysel, 289 ......
-
Friga v. State, 45419
...breaking and entering of the complainant's residence with the intent to commit the offense of rape. See for e.g., Ouellette v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 328, 314 S.W.2d 106 (1958) and Dickson v. State, 64 S.W. 1043 The appellant's second ground of error is that 'The court erred in admitting the ......
-
Ex parte Keener
... ... L. P. Caston, Longview, for relator ... Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State ... MORRISON, Presiding Judge ... ...