Pittman v. State, 41881
| Decision Date | 05 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41881,41881 |
| Citation | 438 S.W.2d 808 |
| Parties | Guy Edward PITTMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John R. Coe, Houston, Court-appointed counsel, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is robbery; the punishment, 10 years.
The prosecuting witness and a liquor salesman positively identified appellant as the robber who, at about 8 P.M., at pistol point demanded and received the money in the cash register in a liquor store owned by the prosecuting witness.
Appellant's first two grounds of error complain that the court erred in overruling his motion for mistrial because counsel for the state exhibited before the jury a pistol which was never admitted in evidence.
Appellant concedes in his brief that under the settled law of this state the exhibiting of the pistol was not reversible error, the court having sustained the defendant's objection. McLaughlin v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 390, 76 S.W.2d 768; Haley v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 381, 16 S.W2d 1070; Moneyhun v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 317, 263 S.W.2d 266.
Appellant contends that the prosecutor's assertion: 'We will connect that up later,' made before the jury, gave such added weight to the display that the effect thereof could not be removed by the court's instruction.
Appellant concedes that Newton v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 500, 202 S.W.2d 921, appears to be authority for a contrary view.
The prosecuting witness testified that the pistol exhibited 'looks something like,' and 'could have been' the gun used by the robber. The salesman also testified that the pistol exhibited 'looks like the same gun.'
The cases cited sustain our conclusion that the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for mistrial.
The remaining ground of error relates to the closing argument of counsel for the state and complains that the court denied his motion for mistrial made after said counsel's remarks:
The contention is:
'Such argument was outside the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sockel
...486; United States v. Sears, 7th Cir., 332 F.2d 199, 201; Edwards v. United States, 8th Cir., 333 F.2d 588, 590; see also Pittman v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 438 S.W.2d 808; and an annotation 46 A.L.R.2d 1423, 1436, cites many cases (including eight Missouri cases) holding not prejudicial the e......
-
Craig v. State
...was displayed before the jury prior to objection was not error. Valdez v. State, 462 S.W.2d 24 (Tex.Cr.App.1970) and Pittman v. State, 438 S.W.2d 808 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). Appellant's assertion, made for the first time on appeal, that the display of the pistol before the jury was a prejudicial......
-
Rosales v. State
...into evidence did not render its display before the jury error. Valdez v. State, 462 S.W.2d 24 (Tex.Cr.App.1970) and Pittman v. State, 438 S.W.2d 808 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). Appellant's second ground of error is that 'The trial court erred in not allowing a thorough cross-examination of a state'......