Sanders v. State, 43134
| Decision Date | 20 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 43134,43134 |
| Citation | 462 S.W.2d 3 |
| Parties | Earl Wayne SANDERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Aultman & Riley by Randell C. Riley, Fort Worth (Court-appointed on appeal only), for appellant.
Frank Coffey, Dist. Atty., R. J. Adcock, John Brady, Truman Power and Roger W. Crampton, Asst. Dist. Atty., Fort Worth, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The appeal is from a conviction for murder. The punishment was assessed by the jury as forty years. This is a companion case to Thames v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 453 S.W.2d 495.
The sufficiency of the evidence is challenged. The record reflects that Theo Ray Thames shot and killed Billy Guy Tolleson, the operator of the Starlight Club in Fort Worth. Two nights before, Thames, a co- indictee, and appellant entered the club. When Thames was not allowed to play pool before his turn, a dispute arose. Thames produced a knife and appellant drew a pistol and challenged the other customers to a fight. Two nights later, Thames, Charles Hardin, another co-indictee, and appellant secured pistols and while they were leaving Hardin's house one of them stated: 'I will kill him before he knows what happened.'
The three men then went to the club and caused another disturbance. The record shows that Thames fired a .32 caliber pistol and that a .38 caliber weapon had been fired by Hardin in Tolleson's direction.
The facts are substantially the same as those in Thames v. State, supra, and will not be set out in full. The evidence shows that the three went to the club and were acting together and shows that appellant acted as a principal and is sufficient to support the conviction.
In his first three grounds of error, appellant complains that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of extraneous offenses committed by him in Waco, Texas, and in the states of Colorado and Louisiana.
Substantially the same contention was answered in the Thames case. There the Court held, 'The fact that the circumstances of flight shows the commission of another crime does not render the evidence inadmissible,' and, 'In proving flight, it is also relevant to show efforts made to locate or apprehend the accused, his pursuit and capture, including his resistance to arrest when overtaken.'
Appellant concedes that the State may prove extraneous offenses when elements of flight have been shown, but contends that this was not done.
The record reflects that immediately after the shooting, the three men returned to Hardin's house where they packed their belongings. While they were there a radio newscast announced that Tolleson was in critical condition and one of the men said, 'I hope he is dead.' The three men with three women companions, then went to Waco, Texas, where they arrived between two and three A.M. Later that day, the three men brought in $10,000.00 from an unknown source which was divided between them. 1
Outside the presence of the jury it was shown that appellant was arrested for the present offense some five days after the homicide. The State had no warrant, and appellant was released after a habeas corpus hearing. Appellant was questioned about the murder of Tolleson shortly after he was released on the writ of habeas corpus. Some three weeks later, after appellant was charged with the murder, a warrant was issued for his arrest. In the presence of the jury the State proved that some two weeks after an indictment had returned, appellant and Thames resisted arrest in Colorado, kidnapped two officers, took automobiles at gun point and took devious routes to get to the City of Denver to avoid detection.
It was also proved that appellant committed extraneous offenses including a robbery in Louisiana. When appellant and Thames were arrested in Louisiana, the officers found a .38 caliber pistol, the same caliber as one of the weapons fired during the homicide.
Appellant's argument that the elements of flight were not shown is mainly based on the fact that he was released on the writ of habeas corpus and therefore, he was not to be considered a suspect.
The fact that the judge released appellant after the hearing is not conclusive that appellant was not engaged in flight at a later date.
The trial court had before it sufficient evidence, including the testimony that appellant had been arrested, released, then questioned about the homicide before he went to Colorado, to conclude that appella...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Solis v. State, 45798
...the prosecutor was relying upon this Court's decision in Thames v. State, 453 S.W.2d 495 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). See also Sanders v. State, 462 S.W.2d 3 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). We are not confronted with a situation where the prosecutor is deliberately attempting to elicit inadmissible evidence. Unde......
-
McElwee v. State, 45846
...This contention has been decided adversely to appellant in Jones v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 608, 352 S.W.2d 270, and in Sanders v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 462 S.W.2d 3, and is In his eighth ground of error, appellant says that State's exhibits 2 and 3 were improperly admitted in evidence over his ......
-
Houston v. State, 47513
...alleged participants in a crime have had the sanction of this court. McElwee v. State, 493 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Sanders v. State, 462 S.W.2d 3 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); and Jones v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 608, 352 S.W.2d 270 (Tex.Cr.App.1961). Additionally, it is to be noted that the appell......
-
Alford v. State, 47191
...it is material and relevant for a witness to give a verbal description. Terry v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 491 S.W.2d 161. In Sanders v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 462 S.W.2d 3, we held that permitting two co-indictees in a murder prosecution to be brought into the courtroom in order to be identified as......