Smith v. State, 45352
Decision Date | 07 February 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 45352,45352 |
Citation | 489 S.W.2d 920 |
Parties | Searcy Ray SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jimmy Phillips, Jr., Angleton, for appellant.
Robert J. Seerden, Dist. Atty., Victoria, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Relief is sought from a conviction for the offense of passing a forged instrument. Punishment was assessed at five (5) years' confinement.
Appellant alleges ten grounds of error.
The basic facts are as follows: A store manager testified that the appellant had been in his store and had given a $70.00 money order in exchange for a top coat and some change. He also testified that appellant identified himself with a driver's license as Nolan Fluker and signed the money order Nolan Fluker. A postal inspector testified that a postal money order with the same serial number as the one appellant gave the store manager had been stolen in a burglary.
We will consider first appellant's ground of error No. Ten wherein he alleges that the court erred in admitting certified copies of the prior records of appellant, without requiring the State to show that the appellant was the same person who was convicted therein. The record reflects that at the punishment stage of the proceedings, the State introduced, over appellant's objection, exhibits Nos. Six and Seven, which were certified copies of the Texas Department of Corrections' records, indicating that appellant had been previously convicted on three prior occasions. Then the State introduced exhibit No. Four, a search consent form, and exhibit No. Eight, a $1500.00 bond. Both exhibits Nos. Four and Eight bore appellant's signature, and, quoting the prosecutor, were offered 'solely for the purpose of comparing the signature in (these) with the signature which is contained in Exhibits S--6 and S--7 (the prior convictions).' In each instance, appellant timely objected, complaining that the proper predicate had not been laid. There was no expert testimony whatsoever on this issue.
After the documents had been admitted, the prosecutor, in referring to these four exhibits, stated to the jury:
Appellant's arguments are based chiefly on the basis of our recent opinion in Cain v. State, 468 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).
In Cain, this same writer dealt with a similar fact situation, when documents bearing the defendant's signature were introduced to prove that this was the same person whose signature appeared on documents from prior convictions. No expert testimony was heard, and this Court held that it was incumbent on the State to go further and show by independent testimony that the defendant was the identical person previously convicted. 1 The Court concluded in Cain that where handwriting samples are introduced without expert testimony and the jury alone must make the comparison, And there is no other evidence to connect the defendant with the prior convictions, such identity has not been sufficiently established.
Our initial determination in the instant case must be whether, in fact, there was such 'connecting evidence.' The State contends that such evidence was supplied by appellant's counsel in his jury argument during the punishment stage of the trial. Defense counsel stated:
For several reasons, we are unwilling to hold that this argument sufficiently connected appellant with the prior convictions so as to render unnecessary any further proof on the part of the State. First, the documentary evidence had already been introduced into evidence when the argument was made. The damage was done. 2 Secondly, and more importantly, we are apparently faced with the State's argument that defense counsel's statements during final argument amounted to Evidence, required by Cain, which was sufficient to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Daniel v. State
...Jones v. State, 500 S.W.2d 661 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Vasquez v. State, 491 S.W.2d 173 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); See also Smith v. State, 489 S.W.2d 920 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); and Cain v. State, 468 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); (2) Stipulation or judicial admission of the defendant that he has been so co......
-
Bautista v. State, C14-81-696CR
...Jones v. State, 500 S.W.2d 661 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Vasquez v. State, 491 S.W.2d 173 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); See also Smith v. State, 489 S.W.2d 920 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); and Cain v. State, 468 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); (2) Stipulation or judicial admission of the defendant that he has been so co......
-
Barnes v. State
...of the defendant, a certified judgment on its own is insufficient" to link the defendant to the prior offense); Smith v. State , 489 S.W.2d 920, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) ; Rosales v. State , 867 S.W.2d 70, 74 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1993, no pet.) (trial court erred in admitting prior judgment......
-
Prihoda v. State
...In the following cases, the evidence was found to be insufficient to link the defendant to the prior conviction: Smith v. State, 489 S.W.2d 920, 921–22 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) • Comparison of signatures • Unsworn statements made during closing argument by defense counsel referring to prior conv......