Selestino v. State
| Decision Date | 17 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 34797,34797 |
| Citation | 172 Tex.Crim. 581,360 S.W.2d 888 |
| Parties | Alcario SELESTION, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
William J. Gillespie, Lubbock, for appellant.
Fred E. West, County Atty., Lubbock, Wm. Quinn Brackett, Asst. County Atty., and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is the unlawful sale of beer in a dry area; the punishment, one year in jail and a fine of $1,000.00.
Leonard Lozano, an undercover agent of the Liquor Control Board, testified that while on duty in the City of Lubbock he went to a residence located 1120 East 50th, where he successively bought three bottles of beer, one of them a 12-ounce bottle of Falstaff beer, from appellant, part of which he consumed on the premises; that he saw other people selling and consuming beer during his stay; and that he later identified appellant in a police lineup.
Appellant did not testify in his own behalf but called one Avelia Rangel who stated that she was present at the time and place mentioned in Lozano's testimony, that Lozano had bought and consumed some beer but that appellant was not present on such occasion
Appellant first contends that the State failed to prove the dry status of Lubbock County in that they did not offer into evidence the order of the Commissioners Court calling the 1910 prohibition election. The order canvassing the returns and declaring the results of the prohibition election putting local option into effect, plus proof of the publication of said order, was introduced in evidence. This, we held in the relatively recent case of Johnson v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 284, 319 S.W.2d 713, to be sufficient. The authorities are there cited.
Appellant's second contention is that the court erred in failing to declare a mistrial when the State's witness Lozano gave an alleged unresponsive answer to a question while being cross-examined by his (appellant's) conusel. Counsel was attempting to question the witness's ability to remember the names of people against whom he had instituted prosecutions. He was successful in securing from the witness an admission that he could not remember all of their names and then propounded the question, '* * * and how do you remember this one's name so well (referring to appellant)?' to which the witness replied, 'Well, because I was told to watch him, because he--while back, he stabbed a policeman, I understand, that is the reason I watched him.' The court in his charge instructed the jury not to discuss, mention or take into consideration such answer. In the relatively recent case of Jacks v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 317 S.W.2d 731, the deputy sheriff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nunley v. State
...by the court's instructions to the jury to disregard it. See: Wortham v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 626, 115 S.W.2d 650. In Selestino v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 581, 360 S.W.2d 888, on cross-examination, the appellant's counsel asked a State's witness, '* * * and how do you remember this one's name ......
-
Lamar v. State, 40353
...for the answer which he received, we must conclude that no reversible error is shown by the witness' answer. See Selestino v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 581, 360 S.W.2d 888, and the cases there His next ground of error relates to the testimony of Officer Williams concerning certain cigarettes and......