Rodriguez v. State, 04-85-00083-CR

• Decision Date: 07 May 1986
• Docket Number: No. 04-85-00083-CR,04-85-00083-CR
• Citation: Rodriguez v. State, 710 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. App. 1986)
• Parties: Eddie RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 167

710 S.W.2d 167

Eddie RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v.The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 04-85-00083-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas San Antonio.

May 7, 1986.

Humberto G. Garcia, Garcia & Gutierrez, San Antonio, for appellant.

Thomas F. Lee, Dist. Atty., Del Rio, for appellee.

OPINION

Before CADENA, C.J., and TIJERINA and DIAL, JJ.

CADENA, Chief Justice.

Appellant, after a jury found him guilty of theft of services, was placed on probation for two years.We reject appellant's contention that the evidence is insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.The evidence showed:

Appellant, service manager at a car repair shop, directed employees to repair two of his vehicles, telling them that the owner of the shop had authorized such repairs and that they would be paid for the labor performed by them.The owner of the business denied that he had authorized the repair of appellant's vehicles.The mechanics were compensated for the work they did on appellant's cars, but appellant admits that he did not pay for the labor expended in making the repairs or for the parts used by the mechanics.

Such evidence, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had no intention to pay for the repairs at the time he falsely told his subordinates that the owner of the repair shop had authorized the work.

Appellant seeks reversal on the ground that the trial court improperly excused a juror, forcing appellant to go to trial before a jury consisting of only eleven persons.This point lacks merit.

After the jury had been selected and sworn, but before the indictment had been read, the proceedings were recessed for the day.The next morning the trial judge announced that he had excused a member of the jury because she had become so ill that she was disabled from serving.SeeTEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 36.29(Vernon 1981).When the judge finished his announcement, appellant asked if he could "just register" his objection "for the record."When the court said, "Sure,"appellant said, "I so register my objection."The objection was overruled.

Appellant argues that this action of the trial court was error because he was not present when the juror was excused and was denied an opportunity to present evidence showing that the juror was not disabled.We cannot uphold appellant's contention, since his objection was only a general objection which did not include any grounds.Such a general objection does not preserve...