Sommers v. State, 29528
| Decision Date | 12 February 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 29528,29528 |
| Parties | Donald SOMMERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Phillip E. Palmer, James R. Gillespie, San Antonio, for appellant.
Hubert W. Green, Jr., Dist. Atty., San Antonio, James E. Barlow, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for robbery with firearms; the punishment, 20 years in the penitentiary.
William A. Nixon, the injured party, was a night manager of a service station in the City of San Antonio. On the night in question, while Nixon was on duty, an automobile drove into the station, two men got out, one with a pistol in his hand who said, 'This is a hold-up', and then fired one shot with the pistol. After Nixon and two other men who were in the station were told to face the wall, Nixon, with the gun stuck in his back, was forced to open the cash register and the two men took a $100 check and $367 in money therefrom. After putting the money in their pockets and forcing Nixon and his two companions into a restroom the two men left.
The man with the gun was known to Nixon, the injured party, as Richard Mulkey and was later identified by him as one of the men who committed the robbery. Appellant was identified by Nixon in jail several days after the robbery as the man who participated in the robbery with Mulkey and also positively identified by him at the trial.
The appellant was also identified by the witness, Charles Sherwood, one of the two men present at the station with Nixon on the night in question, as one of the participants in the robbery.
Robert G. Keene, upon being called as a witness by the state, testified that on the night in question appellant told him about the robbery, and asked him to drive the automobile. That he agreed and at appellant's direction drove the automobile in which appellant, Mulkey and a man by the name of Burton Harris went to the service station to commit the robbery. That after the robbery he drove the automobile to his home, got out, and later appellant brought a sack of change to his house which he stated was supposed to contain the witness' part.
Appellant did not testify but called Richard Mulkey as a witness to testify in his behalf.
The court refused to permit Mulkey to testify upon objection by the state that he was a co-principal and co-indictee of appellant and therefore incompetent to testify in his behalf, under Art. 711, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.
The record shows that the witness Mulkey had been charged and convicted of the same offense for which appellant was on trial and at the time he was tendered as a witness was serving a term in the penitentiary under such conviction.
Under the provisions of Art. 711, supra, the witness Mulkey was incompetent to testify in behalf of appellant and the court did not err in refusing to permit him to testify. Hermosillo v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 605, 49 S.W.2d 798 and Freyre v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 291 S.W.2d 321.
By Bills of Exception Nos. 1 and 2, appellant complains of certain testimony given by the state's witness Charles Sherwood. The record reflects that appellant made no objection to the testimony complained of, therefore the two bills present nothing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Pennington
...for the same offense, was incompetent to testify as a witness in appellant's behalf. Article 711, V.A.C.C.P.; Sommers v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 575, 310 S.W.2d 106. No error is presented by the Petitioner first presented his habeas corpus petition to the convicting court. That court, without ......
-
Lopez v. State
...and was incompetent under the provisions of Art. 711, V.A.C.C.P., to testify as a witness for the appellant. Sommers v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 575, 310 S.W.2d 106. Rodriguez being incompetent to testify his written statement would not be admissible in behalf of the appellant. Alaniz v. State,......
-
Meyer v. State, 40413
...Tex.Cr.App., 387 S.W.2d 669; Christesson v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 27, 353 S.W.2d 218; Jones v. State, 352 S.W.2d 270; Sommers v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 575, 310 S.W.2d 106; Miller v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 381, 292 S.W.2d 108; Hay v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 604, 237 S.W.2d The second point of error......
-
Gillingham v. State
...to an absence of testimony other than that of the defendant. Byers v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 310 S.W.2d 331; Sommers v. State; Tex.Cr.App., 310 S.W.2d 106. The issue of self-defense may be and often is raised by testimony other than that of the defendant, and complained of remarks necessarily ......