St. Pe v. State, 46206
| Decision Date | 06 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 46206,46206 |
| Parties | Michael J. ST. PE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Will Gray, (on appeal only) Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Andy Horne, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DAVIS, Commissioner.
Appeal is taken from a conviction for sale of heroin. Punishment was assessed by the jury at seven years.
Appellant contends that the court erred in refusing to permit counsel for appellant, in his opening statement to the jury, at the guilt stage of the trial, to inform the jurors that appellant intended to prove temporary insanity due to the voluntary use of drugs in mitigation of punishment.
In support of this contention, appellant relies on Article 36.01, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., providing for 'Order of proceeding in trial.' After the testimony on the part of the State has been offered, Section 5 of said Article provides that the next proceeding shall be, 'The nature of the defenses relied upon and the facts expected to be proved in their support shall be stated by defendant's counsel.'
The pertinent portion of Article 36, Vernon's Ann.P.C., provides that See Kelly v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 442 S.W.2d 726. Thus, temporary insanity due to voluntary use of drugs is not a defense nor are facts in support thereof matters which come within the ambit of Article 36.01, Section 5, V.A.C.C.P., providing that the defendant shall state 'defenses relied upon and the facts expected to be proved in their support' in his opening statement.
We conclude that the court was not in error in refusing to permit appellant's counsel to inform the jurors that appellant intended to prove temporary insanity by the voluntary use of drugs in mitigation of punishment in his opening statement.
Appellant contends that the court erred in denying him the right to present the opinion testimony of a doctor regarding the issue of temporary insanity produced by the voluntary use of drugs in mitigation of punishment.
Dr. Ruben D. Rumbaut, a psychiatrist at the Veterans Administration Hospital in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. State
...ruled out "general jury argument at that time." Reagan v. State, 423 S.W.2d 335, at 337 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). Accord: St. Pe v. State, 495 S.W.2d 224, at 225 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) (not error to refuse request to inform jury about nondefensive matters, e.g., intent to prove temporary insanity due t......
-
Rodriguez v. State
...recent use of ardent spirits, intoxicating liquors, etc., shall 'constitute any excuse for the commission of crime.' St. Pe v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 495 S.W.2d 224; Evilsizer v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 487 S.W.2d 113; Romero v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 471 S.W.2d 799; Garcia v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 453......
-
Shurbet v. State
...held that the summarized evidence raised the issue of temporary insanity by reason of voluntary intoxication. Cf. St. Pe v. State, 495 S.W.2d 224 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). This Court is of the opinion that the tendered evidence raises the issue of temporary insanity by reason of intoxication and s......
-
Boston v. State, 10-90-223-CR
...not legal defenses to the charged offense. Norton v. State, 564 S.W.2d 714, 718 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978); St. Pe. v. State, 495 S.W.2d 224, 225 (Tex.Crim.App.1973). Boston's complaint, as stated in his brief, is that he was not allowed to tell the jury about his "overall defensive p......