Priest v. State, 27663
| Decision Date | 05 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 27663,27663 |
| Citation | 282 S.W.2d 390,162 Tex.Crim. 66 |
| Parties | Margaret PRIEST, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
James H. Martin, Robert C. Benavides, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Crim. Dist. Atty., James K. Allen, Asst. Dist. Atty., William F. Alexander, Asst. Dist. Atty., Geo. P. Blackburn, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chas. S. Potts, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
The offense is theft from the person; the punishment, seven years in the penitentiary.
The injured party testified that he registered at a suburban motel; then went downtown and, while walking along the street, was spoken to by appellant who was in an automobile; that at her suggestion, he got in the car and after they talked a few minutes, she drove a short distance and parked in a secluded place; that she complained of her home life being neglected, unzipped his trousers, straddled his body, and began fondling his body and private parts; that after an intimate, amorous experience between them, they agreed to go to his room at the motel and upon arrival in front of the motel, she stated that the manager of the motel knew her and for him to go to his room and she would come later; that upon his leaving the car, she suddenly sped away causing him to immediately examine his purse which disclosed that his money was gone. He further testified that immediately before he got in the car with appellant he had $170 in money in his purse which he was carrying in his hip pocket, and that immediately after appellant let him out of her car all of this money was gone which was taken from his person without his knowledge and consent.
Appellant did not testify or offer any testimony in her behalf.
In connection with the identification of the appellant, the injured party testified that he reported his loss to the police and gave them a description of the appellant, and on further examination by the State as to whether the police showed him anything at the time he made the report, replied that 'Mr. Lord (policeman) showed me a file of known pickpockets.' To which answer appellant objected on the ground that it was highly prejudicial, inflammatory and prevented a fair trial, and requested a mistrial because the answer revealed to the jury that appellant was a police character and that her photograph was among those of known pickpockets and such information could not be erased from the jury's mind by any instruction on the part of the court. This motion for a mistrial was overruled and appellant excepted.
The State, on further examination of the injured party, again inquired if Policeman Lord showed him anything and he replied that 'Officer Lord showed me the police files on Margaret Priest (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frison v. State
...positively identify him (Watts) at Belton, we likewise find no reversible error as to Watts. Appellant's reliance upon Priest v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 66, 282 S.W.2d 390, is clearly misplaced, and not controlling under the circumstances here Since the appellant Frison 'recalled' Harris and f......
-
Booth v. State, 46456
...Lott v. State, 490 S.W.2d 600, 601 (Tex.Cr.App., 1973).4 Porter v. State, 154 Tex.Cr. 252, 226 S.W.2d 435 (1950); Priest v. State, 162 Tex.Cr. 66, 282 S.W.2d 390 (1955); and Martinez v. State, 169 Tex.Cr. 151, 332 S.W.2d 718 (1960).5 'The trial court committed reversible error in admission ......
-
Florio v. State
...6--H) was a mug shot of appellant from which the numbers in the margin had not been expunged. Appellant's reliance on Priest v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 66, 282 S.W.2d 390 is misplaced. In Priest, the State introduced the evidence of a prior police record. The statements of the complaining witn......
-
Gill v. State, 44888
...was pursued by the State was to impress upon the jurors that appellant had a police record. Appellant relies on Priest v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 66, 282 S.W.2d 390. In Priest, the injured party, upon being asked if police showed him anything when he made the report, answered, 'Mr. Lord (polic......