Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 20 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 51800,51800 |
| Parties | Howie Ray ROBINSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
DAVIS, Commissioner.
Appeal is taken from a conviction for capital murder. Punishment was assessed at death.
The record reflects that appellant, Ernest Smith, 1 and George Holden met in the Pussycat Lounge in Dallas on September 27, 1973. Holden agreed to drive Smith and appellant to an undisclosed place to gamble. Holden loaned appellant a .22 caliber pistol that someone had pawned to Holden and which Holden kept at the bar.
Under Smith's directions, Holden drove the two men in an automobile he borrowed from his brother's girl friend to a place near Dolphin Road and Alpine Street and was told to wait in the car. Appellant, armed with the .22 caliber pistol, and Smith, armed with another pistol, left the car for approximately fifteen minutes. When the two returned they were running and were carrying a cigar box containing rolled change, paper money, and a .38 caliber pistol and holster.
Holden testified that appellant stated that he had to shoot someone in the head at Schepps' Food Store. Holden related that appellant was still carrying the .22 caliber pistol when he returned to the car.
The trio drove to James Mitchell's house and divided the proceeds of the robbery. Holden further testified that appellant told Mitchell that, " . . . he had shot the man in the head."
William Moon, night manager of Schepps' Food Store at Dolphin Road and Alpine Street, was found shot to death at the store on September 28, 1973. Moon died of a gunshot wound in the head. The .22 caliber pistol belonging to Holden was identified as the murder weapon. Appellant's fingerprints were lifted from a mustard jar on the checkout counter of the store.
Appellant, in a number of his contentions, complains of testimony and arguments of the prosecutor relating to State's witness Holden taking a polygraph examination.
The record reflects that indictments were pending against Holden for robbery and murder growing out of the transaction which forms the basis of this prosecution. Holden's attorney, John Thompson, was called as a witness by the defense and, prior to his testifying, an extensive hearing was had out of the presence of the jury. During the hearing, a number of rulings were made by the court relative to the introduction of testimony about Holden taking the lie detector test. It was developed that a plea bargain had been entered into whereby Holden would testify for the State and the State would in turn recommend probated sentences for Holden in the robbery and murder cases. Additional prerequisites to the agreement were that Holden would take a lie detector test, that he must pass the test, and testify on behalf of the State. The trial court ruled that it was not going to allow the results of the test "in the polygraph examiner's opinion, or what the questions were, or what areas they went into, or what areas they didn't go into, or the answers to any specific questions or even what the specific questions were."
In addition, the court ruled, " . . . when the question is asked what the particularized plea bargain was, if there is an objection to that, I will overrule the objection of the State, and then you will have, in effect, in this Court's opinion, opened up the basis to in which the plea bargain was arrived at . . . if the issue of having to take a lie detector test is a requisite to receiving the five year probation, I believe the entire conversation will then be opened up."
In addition, the following occurred outside the presence of the jury.
The record reflects that the following occurred during the testimony of Thompson:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dean
...Fulton v. Oklahoma, 541 P.2d 871 (Okl.Cr.1975). See also Commonwealth v. Pfender, 421 A.2d 791 (Pa.Super.1980); Robinson v. State, 550 S.W.2d 54 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). Essentially the view taken by the critics of the admit-on-stipulation approach is that the stipulation does little if anything ......
-
Castillo v. State
...Nethery v. State, 692 S.W.2d 686, 700 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). See also King v. State, 511 S.W.2d 32 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Robinson v. State, 550 S.W.2d 54, 59 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Fernandez v. State, 564 S.W.2d 771 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Crawford v. State, 617 S.W.2d 925 Appellant recognizes the rule but......
-
U.S. v. Ramirez
...established in Giglio, Napue, and their progeny weighs heavily against the interests underlying the privilege. See Robinson v. State, 550 S.W.2d 54, 59 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Mays v. State, 594 P.2d 777 ...
-
Com. v. Vitello
...(1976); Commonwealth v. Gee, 467 Pa. 123, 142, 354 A.2d 875 (1976); State v. Watson, 248 N.W.2d 398, 399 (S.D.1976); Robinson v. State, 550 S.W.2d 54, 59 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Jones v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 723, 725, 204 S.E.2d 247 (1974); Annot., 53 A.L.R.3d 1005, 1010-1011 (1973). There is a......
-
CHAPTER 5.I. Motion Authorities
...S.W.2d 586, 587 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (rules of evidence exclude polygraphs even where parties stipulate to them). Robinson v. State, 550 S.W.2d 54, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (court cannot affirm unreliability of lie detector tests and then admit results of stipulated test). iii. Refusal t......