Purdy v. State
| Decision Date | 11 November 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 26580,26580 |
| Parties | PURDY v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Davis Bragg, Belton, J. W. Thomas, Jr., Temple, for appellant.
Wesley Dice, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is assault with intent to murder; the punishment, ten years.
City Police Officer Wiggington testified that, while he was on duty in uniform on the night in question, a girl who worked in the Circle Bar came to him and reported that they were having trouble and asked him to come with her. The witness stated that as he and the girl neared the bar the appellant and another boy walked out, and she identified them as being the ones who had been causing the trouble. Officer Wiggington testified that he called to the boys to stop, but that they went into an alley and got in the front seat of a waiting taxicab; however, he arrived at the cab before it started moving and asked the boys to get out. The witness stated that the appellant and his companion got out; that the three of them started toward the police station; that after they had taken a few steps the appellant's companion said, 'Let's jump him, I think we can both handle him'; and that immediately thereafter both appellant and his companion attacked him. Officer Wiggington stated that appellant grabbed him around the shoulders and held on to him until a cab driver pulled him loose, and as this was being done he himself was shot three times. The witness stated that the appellant and his companion fled from the scene and that he did not know which one of them had fired the shots.
Appellant and his companion were arrested some distance away a short while thereafter.
Appellant's witnesses testified that it was appellant's companion who grabbed the officer's gun and shot him and that the appellant had done no more than hold the officer. Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, denied that his companion, who was his brother, had made any statement prior to the attack and stated that all he did was wrestle with the officer trying to get loose from him.
We find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.
We shall discuss the contentions raised by the earnest court appointed counsel for the appellant.
Bill of exception No. 1 complains of the admission into evidence of an ordinance of the City of Temple authorizing arrest without warrant in certain cases by city policemen of such city.
Appellant contends that the ordinance is in conflict with Article 214, C.C.P., because the statute reads, 'authorizing the arrest, without warrant, of persons found in suspicious places, and under circumstances which reasonably show that such persons have been guilty * * *' (italics ours) while the ordinance uses the disjunctive.
Though it is not apparent from the opinion that the same objection was leveled at the ordinance, the right of the officers of the City of Temple to arrest without a warrant under an ordinance of that city was upheld in Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Kriegel, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W. 1071 (writ refused).
In Heath v. Boyd, 141 Tex. 569, 175 S.W.2d 214, 216, the Supreme Court of this State said:
'The only circumstances under which one may lawfully be arrested without warrant are: * * * (6) when the ordinances of a city...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Crushed Concrete LLC v. City Of Houston
...City's air quality.5 But land-use regulations may be found scattered throughout the City's Code of Ordinances. Cf. Purdy v. State, 261 S.W.2d 850, 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1953) (explaining that the title of a municipal ordinance is not required to embrace its subject, and the ordinance's purpo......
-
S. Crushed Concrete, LLC v. City of Hous.
...air quality.5 But land-use regulations may be found scattered throughout the City's Code of Ordinances. Cf. Purdy v. State, 159 Tex.Crim. 154, 261 S.W.2d 850, 851 (1953) (explaining that the title of a municipal ordinance is not required to embrace its subject, and the ordinance's purpose n......
-
Baray v. State, 30224
...317 S.W.2d 58. Appellant's last contention that the city ordinance is unconstitutional was decided adversely to him in Purdy v. State, Tex.Cr.R. 154, 261 S.W.2d 850, and Crippen v. State, 80 Tex.Cr.R. 293, 189 S.W. Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and no reversible ......