Smith v. State, 42935
| Decision Date | 10 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 42935,42935 |
| Citation | 455 S.W.2d 282 |
| Parties | Robert SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Richard D. Naylor, Pecos, for appellant.
Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is burglary; the punishment, 4 years.
Trial was before a jury on a plea of not guilty. The punishment was assessed by the court.
Appellant's ground of error Nos. 3 and 4 present the contention that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.
Viewed from the standpoint most favorable to the jury's verdict, the evidence reflects the following:
On July 10, 1969, the prosecuting witness, Justo Dominguez, closed his service station in Pecos around 9 P.M. He left the cash register open but checked all his doors to make sure they were locked. The police called him to the service station and when he arrived, about 11:30 P.M., the police were there. He gave no one permission to break into his business. It was broken into that night.
Appellant was found in the building by Officer Jim Wolson who noticed that the window on the north side was broken out and saw a man standing in the window. He entered through the window and brought appellant out through it.
Certain articles marked and introduced in evidence as State's Exhibits were identified by the prosecuting witness as articles that were missing from the cash register, and by Deputy Sheriff Phelps as articles that he took from appellant's shirt pocket when he searched him, after he was brought out of the service station through the broken window. Officer Phelps testified that he knew the window 'was broken out' within the preceding 24 hours because, as a part of his job, he was behind the building the night before and the window 'was in'.
Appellant testified that he ran to the service station when he heard a shot and thought somebody was shooting at him that the window was already broken and he went through in into the building when he heard another shot. He denied that he went to the cash register; that he ever had the articles identified by Officer Phelps and the prosecuting witness on his person, and denied that Officer Phelps got them out of his shirt pocket.
It is apparent from the verdict that the jury did not accept appellant's testimony as true.
Ground of error No. 2 complains of the admission of the testimony of Officer Wilson to the effect that he observed a person other than appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Estelle
...360, 362 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). See also Tex.Code Crim.Pro. § 38.29; Nichols v. State, 494 S.W.2d 830 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Smith v. State, 455 S.W.2d 282 (Tex.Cr.App.1970).13 See Tex.Code Crim.Pro. Art. 781(b) (Adult Probation and Parole Law) (now repealed); Articles 776--781 (Suspended Sentence ......
-
Gill v. Estelle
... ... in his own behalf because the court refused to grant a preliminary motion to prevent the state from using the prior conviction for impeachment purposes; and, he contends that the use of the ... State, 464 S.W.2d 129, 133 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Smith v. State, 455 S.W.2d 282, 283 (Tex ... Cr.App.1970). Since the probation was unconstitutionally ... ...
-
Zillender v. State
...impeachment. Mills v. State, 508 S.W.2d 823 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Nichols v. State, 494 S.W.2d 830 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Smith v. State, 455 S.W.2d 282 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). The trial judge clearly erred in concluding that the prior conviction could be used for The State, however, contends that the ......
-
Valdez v. State
...and the period of probation has not expired may be shown for the purpose of impeaching him as a witness. Art. 38.29 Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. See Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 282; Rayford v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 423 S.W.2d 300. Ground of error No. 6 complains that the court erred in ove......