Piraino v. State, 40364
| Decision Date | 24 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40364,40364 |
| Parties | Sam PIRAINO and Joe Piraino, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jack Miles, Will Gray, (on appeal only), Houston, for appellant.
Carol Vance, Dist. Atty., Richard M. DeGuerin and Jimmy James, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Appellants were jointly tried and convicted for the offense of aggravated assault upon a female. The jury assessed the punishment of each at seven hundred thirty days in jail and a fine of $1,000, and recommended that they be granted probation.
This is an appeal by appellants from the conviction at the time they were granted probation, as authorized by Art. 42.13, Sec. 8(a), of the 1965 Code of Criminal Procedure.
The record shows that the appellants were in the bail bond business in the city of Houston. Appellant Joe Piraino, as surety, executed six bail bonds for Mrs. Delenda Johnson, the injured party, in certain cases pending against her in the corporation court of the city of Houston, for alleged traffic law violations. The bonds were forfeited.
Thereafter, on February 14, 1966, appellants went to Mrs. Johnson's home, where they placed handcuffs on her, took her to their office, and then to the corporation court and delivered her to the city officers.
Mrs. Johnson testified that when appellants entered her home they grabbed her, knocked her down, and put handcuffs on her, and that she received bruises on her wrist.
Appellants denied that they used any violence upon the injured party or inflicted any injuries but admitted that they did place handcuffs on her and take her to the corporation court.
Six grounds of error are urged by appellants in their briefs filed in the trial court.
In the first two grounds it is insisted that state's counsel erred in 'arguing to the jury that bondsmen had no right to physically detain or arrest a principal under a bond' and misstating to the jury the law with reference to the rights of a bondsman to effect a physical surrender of a principal.
We have examined the record and find no objection to any such argument. The grounds of error present nothing for review.
In their third ground of error, appellants insist that the court erred in overruling their motion for an instructed verdict of not guilty because no intent to injure was shown. It is insisted that the proof shows that their primary intent was to arrest the injured party and not to injure her.
We find no merit in the contention, as the injured party testified she received injuries from the appellants which resulted in bruises. The proof also shows her constraint by appellants.
Art. 1139 of the Penal Code provides:
In their fourth ground of error, appellants complain, generally, of the 'prosecution's remarks made during the trial which were prejudicial and inflammatory, thereby depriving defendants of a fair trial.' No particular remark to which an objection was made is specified by appellants in their briefs except a statement by state's counsel in his closing argument to the jury when he said:
'A great asset, they are not an asset but blood suckers, in God's name they are.'
The record reflects that appellants' objection to the argument was by the court sustained. No motion to strike the remark nor motion for a mistrial was made by appellants. No reversible error is shown. Hasek v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 384 S.W.2d 722.
In their fifth ground of error, appellants insist that they were deprived of a fair trial because of the prosecutor's action in taking the witness stand at the hearing on punishment and testifying that their general reputation for being peaceable and law-abiding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cherry v. State
...It was incumbent upon defense counsel to clearly object to the remark made and to secure a definite ruling thereon. Piraino v. State, 415 S.W.2d 416 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). Further, the record reflects no request that the jury be instructed not to consider the remarks. Schreiner v. State, Supra;......
-
Els v. State, 49072
...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); Holtzclaw v. State, 451 S.W.2d 505, 506--507 Appellant also waived any error he might now urge when he took the stand and ......
-
Mathews v. State
...John v. State, 427 S.W.2d 862 (1968); Bowers v. State, 414 S.W.2d 929 (1967); Crawford v. State, 412 S.W.2d 57 (1967); and Piraino v. State, 415 S.W.2d 416 (1967). Here, the record on appeal does not reflect that appellant's counsel made specific objections to the parts of the prosecuting a......
-
Austin v. State, 42619
...341, 349 S.W.2d 730; Cook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 388 S.W.2d 707; Rodriguez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 398 S.W.2d 124; Piraino v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 415 S.W.2d 416; Lawhon v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 429 S.W.2d 147; Munoz v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 435 S.W.2d 500; Bell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 442 S.W.2d ......