Ridler v. State, 36441
| Decision Date | 22 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 36441,36441 |
| Citation | 375 S.W.2d 447 |
| Parties | Willie Clyde RIDLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John Cutler, Houston, for appellant.
Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Carl E. F. Dally, James I. Smith, Jr., and Carol S. Vance, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is aggravated assault on a peace officer; the punishment, two years.
Officer Moore of the Houston Police Department testified that on the night in question while traveling in a patrol car, he observed a fight in progress in the street, that five or six males and one female were involved, that he dismounted and as he approached the group, 'somebody hollered, 'There is the police!', and they all fled with the exception of the defendant * * * and as I approached him, he turned on me with a knife in his left hand and attempted to cut me, he did cut my shirt * * * above the belt line.' The officer's uniform shirt was introduced in evidence without objection. He further testified that appellant was finally subdued and placed in jail.
Appellant called Betty Jean Starks, who testified that she was appellant's common-law wife, but was not living with him at the time, that appellant came to her house on the day in question, got their son and left, but later returned without the child, and a fight between them ensued. She stated that appellant was armed with a knife during the fight inside the house, but that when they repaired to the street, where the fight continued, he had put the knife away. She stated that the officer came up to where they were fighting, grabbed appellant from behind, and said, 'you have a knife on me', but stated that she saw no knife in appellant's hand at the time and did not see him cut the officer.
Appellant testified that the fight arose over Betty Jean's refusal to go to a 'beer joint' with him; he admitted that he had his knife open while they were fighting inside the house, but stated that he had placed it in his pocket still open when they went out into the street. He denied that he had the knife in his hand or that he cut the officer. He testified that he was treated brutally both at the scene of the arrest and at the police station.
Officer Moore was recalled and denied that he applied any force toward appellant except that which was necessary to get the knife away from him and to place him in the patrol car.
The jury resolved the conflict in the evidence against the appellant, and we find it sufficient to support the conviction.
Only two questions are presented by brief and in argument. Appellant first contends that error is reflected by the asking of the following question of Betty Jean: 'That night you went to Judge W. C. Ragan, that night, and filed a charge on him.' Appellant's objection and motion for mistrial were overruled, but the question was not answered in the jury's presence. After the perfection of the bills of exception in the jury's absence by which it was shown that the complaint against appellant growing out of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bustillos v. State
...308 S.W.2d 36; Dukes v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 423, 277 S.W.2d 710; Wardrope v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 305, 340 S.W.2d 498; Ridler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 447. And the Legislature never sought by legislative enactment to vary such interpretation. In fact, Article 732a, supra, was brou......
-
Moreno v. State, s. 59057
...enacting the statute was to exclude extraneous offenses for impeachment which had not resulted in a final conviction. Ridler v. State, 375 S.W.2d 447 (Tex.Cr.App.1964). In Scarborough v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 83, 344 S.W.2d 886 (1961), and Campbell v. State, 480 S.W.2d 391 (Tex.Cr.App.1972),......
-
Fentis v. State, s. 49833
...and explicitly prohibits evidence of pending indictments to be used for impeachment purposes as was done here. Ridler v. State, 375 S.W.2d 447 (Tex.Cr.App.1964). Further with respect to the question concerning the indictment, the State points out that it was never answered and that the jury......
-
Clark v. State
...intended to exclude, for impeachment purposes, extraneous offenses which have not resulted in a conviction, Ridler v. State, 375 S.W.2d 447, 449 (Tex.Crim.App.1964), it seems fair to conclude that the exclusion would apply with even greater effect to alleged offenses about which no complain......