Swain v. State
| Decision Date | 18 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 55946,55946,3 |
| Citation | 583 S.W.2d 775 |
| Parties | Freddie G. SWAIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
David Van Os, Austin, for appellant.
Ronald P. Earle, Dist. Atty., and Richard E. Banks, Asst. Dist. Atty., Austin, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before DOUGLAS and TOM G. DAVIS, JJ., and CORNELIUS, C.
WILLIAM J. CORNELIUS, Commissioner.
Appellant was convicted of burglary of a habitation. Punishment, enhanced pursuant to V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 12.42(d), was set at life imprisonment.
At about 11:45 p.m. on August 15, 1975, residents who lived near the house in question observed an automobile stop under a street light. They then saw two men leave the automobile and walk up the street north bound. The men then crossed the street to the west and disappeared down a driveway adjacent to the residence in question. As they walked along the street, one of the men was seen carrying something about ten to twelve inches long in a plastic bag that looked like a tire tool in a lady's stocking. At least two of the residents identified appellant as one of the two males. Being called to the scene on a suspicious vehicle report describing the automobile as a white Buick, police officers were unable to locate a vehicle of that description, but were pointed to a grey Oldsmobile and received other information that caused them to walk north to the residence in question adjacent to the driveway where the two males were last seen. The officers knocked on the front door of the residence and received no response. They then returned, conferred further with the observers, and then went over and examined the grey Oldsmobile. The officers then returned north to the residence, and in the company of a neighbor, went down the driveway over a chain link fence on the south side of the residence and into the backyard area. One of the officers then noticed a figure, later identified as appellant, crouched by some outside stairs leading to an overhanging porch. The other officer and a civilian approached a lower patio door below the stairs as the first officer went around the western portion of the stairway. They heard the first officer call out, and when they turned around, they saw him struggling with the appellant. The civilian testified that he saw the appellant come off the staircase from about half way down it. No other witness testified to having seen the appellant anywhere on the premises, and no witness testified to having seen appellant inside the residence building. Later inspection of the premises revealed that the door to the residence was open, there was a mark on the door, a television set was in the doorway, and a television set was in the backyard of the residence with a tire tool next to it. When appellant was apprehended he had a man's sock on one of this hands. Appellant signed a written statement which, after a Jackson v. Denno hearing, was admitted into evidence. In it he stated that he had burglarized the house but that he used "no force, just pull back the door and I had tools I didn't even use." The defense attempted to show that the confession was unreliable because of appellant's extreme intoxication from alcohol and narcotics at the time of the offense and even up to the time the statement was given.
In its main charge the trial court instructed the jury that "A habitation is a structure or vehicle that is adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons." The jurors were further instructed that unless they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant knowingly and intentionally entered a habitation without the effective consent of its owner and there committed or attempted to commit theft, they must acquit appellant. After the jurors had deliberated for some time, they presented two written questions to the trial court. The first asked where the officers apprehended appellant. It was not answered. The second inquired: In response to that question the court gave the following supplementary instruction:
"You have asked for a more explicit definition of habitation. The Court charges you as follows:
'Habitation' means a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lugo v. State
...Torres v. State, 585 S.W.2d 746 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Branham v. State, 583 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Swain v. State, 583 S.W.2d 775 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Duson v. State, 559 S.W.2d 807 In determining whether evidence has been presented which raises the issue of a lesser included offense, the......
-
State v. Aubert
...evidence. Refusal to charge on that defense is reversible error. United States v. Tashman, 478 F.2d 129 (5th Cir. 1973); Swain v. State, 583 S.W.2d 775 (Tex.1979); C. Torcia, 4 Wharton's Criminal Procedure § 538 (12th ed.1975). This principle applies to the defense of accident as well as to......
-
Craner v. State
...question could only be entered by climbing fifteen to eighteen feet and then climbing over the wooden banister. Craner relies on Swain v. State, 583 S.W.2d 775 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979), and Day v. State, 534 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.Crim.App.1976), but both of those cases are distinguishable......
-
Hilton v. State, 2-83-100-CR
...evidence is produced by the State or by the defendant and whether it is strong, weak, unimpeached or contradicted. Swain v. State, 583 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). (Emphasis added). While we agree with this general proposition, we find it to be of no support to appellant's contention.......
-
Offenses against property
...attached to a residence is not a space appurtenant to or connected with a structure adapted for overnight accommodation. Swain v. State , 583 S.W.2d 775 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979) (where defendant was shown to be only on a stairway). “Habitation” evidence held sufficient: Trotter v. State , 623 S......
-
Table of cases
...v. State No. AP-75 2009 WL 4931882 2009 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 830 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014, pet. ref’d) 11:910 Swain v. State 583 S.W.2d 775 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979) 8:560 Sweed v. State 351 S.W.3d 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) 8:440 Swope v. State 723 S.W.2d 216 (Tex. App.—Aus......