Rawlinson v. State, 45266
| Decision Date | 08 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 45266,45266 |
| Citation | 487 S.W.2d 341 |
| Parties | Richard Shirley RAWLINSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Neal B. Wheeler, Douglas H. Parks, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., W. T. Westmoreland, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is robbery; the punishment, fifteen (15) years.
Appellant's two grounds of error relate to questions propounded to him at a time when he was recalled as a witness by the State. Specifically, he claims that the court erred 'when it admitted Defendant's confession into evidence without a proper predicate being laid' and '. . . when it allowed Defendant called for rebuttal, to be impeached by his confession that was not admissible in evidence.'
The record reflects he had testified in his own behalf and admitted that he attempted to rob the bank in question, but denied that he remembered certain details of the operation. When recalled by the State he was questioned for four pages of this record regarding a prior statement he had made. The State had the statement marked for identification as State's Exhibit No. 7. The only objection interposed during this time was the following, . After the appellant left the stand we find the following:
'Mr. Zadina (the prosecutor). Your Honor, at this time I would like to offer into evidence what's been marked as State's Exhibit No. 7--
Mr. White (appellant's counsel). Object to this. The witness recognizes the signature, but he doesn't recognize any of the rest of the document.
The Court. Is that your objection?
Mr. White. That's my objection.
The Court. Overruled.'
However, immediately after the exhibit was admitted, the jury was retired and State's Exhibit No. 7 was withdrawn. The court specifically noted, outside the presence of the Jury, that the exhibit was not passed among the jurors or read by them.
It is well established that a timely objection is required to preserve a point for review. Jackson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 477 S.W.2d 879; Larocca v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 479 S.W.2d 669; Bitela v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 463 S.W.2d 738, and cases there cited. In Moore v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 480 S.W.2d 728, we said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brock v. State
...Williams v. State, 531 S.W.2d 606 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Sloan v. State, 515 S.W.2d 913 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Rawlinson v. State, 487 S.W.2d 341 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). In Rose v. State, 507 S.W.2d 547 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), relied upon by the appellant, the trial objection to the admission of prior convic......
-
Pizzalato v. State
...Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 112; Jones v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 501 S.W.2d 308; Taylor v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 489 S.W.2d 890; Rawlinson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 487 S.W.2d 341; Moore v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 480 S.W.2d 728; Clark v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 470 S.W.2d 869; Green v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 467......
-
Ex parte Bagley
...Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 112; Jones v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 501 S.W.2d 308; Taylor v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 489 S.W.2d 890; Rawlinson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 487 S.W.2d 341; Moore v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 480 S.W.2d 728; Clark v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 470 S.W.2d 869; Green v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 467......
-
Smith v. State
...at trial. Campbell v. State, 492 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Gondek v. State, 491 S.W.2d 676 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Rawlinson v. State, 487 S.W.2d 341 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). The trial objections here of irrelevancy, incompetency, impropriety and prejudice have been converted on appeal to claims o......