Perez v. State, 45602
| Decision Date | 07 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 45602,45602 |
| Citation | 490 S.W.2d 847 |
| Parties | Renaldo Julius PEREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert L. Wells, Victoria, for appellant.
Robert J. Seerden, Dist. Atty., Victoria, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The appeal is taken from a conviction for the offense of murder with malice. Punishment was assessed at life imprisonment.
Appellant raises three grounds of error.
The record reflects that on September 25, 1970, appellant took a person known to him as Robert to a ranch in Victoria County, where the two men engaged in target practice. After shooting over one another's head, the two men got into an argument and appellant shot the deceased in the chest. Appellant then started to help the deceased into an automobile to take him to Victoria for medical attention. When the deceased started opening a gate, appellant shot him one or more times behind the ear and then dragged his body into the brush off the roadway, and hid the body.
In December of 1970, appellant went to the sheriff's office in Brooks County and reported the killing. Appellant was given the statutory warnings, and signed a written confession at that time. Appellant was then taken to the scene of the offense and, with officers present, assisted them in the search of the premises. He gave information which led to the finding of portions of clothing and bones, determined to belong to the deceased.
It is the statements made by appellant during this search to which appellant initially objects. Appellant contends that the mere presence of the officers intimidated him and led him to believe that he was required to make the statements and assist the officers in the search. Even viewed as confessions, the statements were admissible under Art. 38.22, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. which states:
'(e) It be made orally and the defendant makes a statement of facts or circumstances that are found to be true, which conduce to establish his guilt, such as the finding of secreted or stolen property, or the instrument with which he states the offense was committed.'
There was no showing that the statements were not made freely without compulsion or persuasion. Art. 28.21, V.A.C.C.P. See...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Solis v. State
...1930, no writ); Stair v. Smith, 299 S.W. 660, 661 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1927, no writ). Appellant cites Perez v. State, 490 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) as authority that the failure to have the interpreter sworn in before he interprets would be error. In Perez it was conceded that the inte......
-
Elizondo v. State, 04-81-00409-CR
...no objection is timely made specifically to his failure to be resworn at the time of trial, no error is preserved. Perez v. State, 490 S.W.2d 847, 848 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Solis v. State, 647 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1983, no pet.). Appellant's first ground of error is Appellant's......