Roliard v. State, 48053
| Decision Date | 13 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 48053,48053 |
| Citation | 506 S.W.2d 904 |
| Parties | Steven ROLIARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Oliver James Moak, Huntsville, for appellant.
Jerry A. Sandel, Dist. Atty., Erwin G. Ernst, Deputy Dist. Atty., Huntsville, Texas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Buddy Stevens, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is assault with intent to commit rape; the punishment, twelve years.
Appellant raises four grounds of error, none of which challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.
In ground of error number one, appellant complains that the State violated Article 38.29, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., by bringing out the fact on cross-examination of appellant that appellant had previously been placed on probation, when appellant's probation had in fact been revoked.
The following exchange took place:
'Q (by prosecutor) You were charged with burglary, weren't you?
A (by appellant) Yes sir.
Q And you entered a plea of guilty to that charge on that date, did you not?
A Yes, I did.
Q And you were placed on five years probation . . .
The testimony was admissible because appellant was placed on probation and it was revoked. Art. 38.29, V.A.C.C.P.
In grounds of error two and three appellant contends that his cross examination of the prosecutrix as to previous 'acts of misconduct' was unduly limited by the trial court. Appellant's counsel attempted to elicit from the prosecutrix certain information concerning her use of marihuana, in particular whether or not she had ever smoked marihuana, how often she smoked marihuana, and whether she had ever smoked marihuana in the presence of her husband and co-indictee Jim Bill Barron.
We find no error in the trial court's action. Appellant's counsel was attempting to impeach the credibility of the prosecutrix with testimony concerning matters which were totally irrelevant to the issues involved. Only convictions of a felony or offenses involving moral turpitude are available for this manner of impeachment. Art. 38.29, supra.
In his last ground of error appellant asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence of a statement made by co-indictee Jim Bill Barron.
Barron did not testify at trial. Appellant attempted to have the statement admitted on the basis that it showed Barron's state of mind. The trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zarychta v. State
...301 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957)(representing the State as an assistant district attorney in Harris County); Roliard v. State, 506 S.W.2d 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)(as an assistant district attorney in Walker County); Moring v. State, 591 S.W.2d 538, 539 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)(as distr......
-
Zillender v. State
...it is clear that the prior conviction would have been admissible had the defendant's probation in fact been revoked, Roliard v. State, 506 S.W.2d 904 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), the issue raised by the State is one of first The record reflects that the motion to revoke and the capias were issued one......
-
Hogue v. State, 68852
...the conviction became final on December 8, 1975, when appellant's first probation was revoked and he was incarcerated. Roliard v. State, 506 S.W.2d 904 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). The following period of incarceration between December 8, 1975 and March 1, 1976 was never affected by the second probat......
-
Brown v. State
...court incorrectly applied this Court's decision in Cross, supra, and should have applied the holding voiced in Roliard v. State, 506 S.W.2d 904 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Appellant's first ground for review attacks the appellate court's third finding that the error was In order to address both cont......