Thomas v. State
| Decision Date | 22 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-81-00021-CR,05-81-00021-CR |
| Citation | 624 S.W.2d 296 |
| Parties | Bobby Ray THOMAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Bill Roberts, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Karen Chilton Beverly, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, for appellee.
Before TED Z. ROBERTSON, STEPHENS and ALLEN, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for burglary of a habitation. Following a verdict of guilty, punishment was assessed by the jury at 99 years.
The appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment of conviction, that the trial court erred in re-reading a portion of the testimony to the jury after they retired for deliberations, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We disagree and thus affirm.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Clark v. State, 543 S.W.2d 125 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). The appellate court may not pass upon the credibility of the witnesses or the weight to be given their testimony, nor may it interfere with the jury's resolution of conflicts in the evidence. Esquivel v. State, 506 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). The facts in this case are sufficient to connect the appellant with the commission of the offense. No error is shown. Jones v. State, 482 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).
In his first supplemental ground of error the appellant contends that the trial court erred in re-reading a portion of the complainant's testimony to the jury in violation of article 36.28, Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. (Vernon 1981). During deliberations on the guilt or innocence stage of the trial, the jury sent a note to the court asking for "witness answer when defendant asked for a cigarette." Defense counsel objected to the re-reading of the testimony on the grounds that the answer given by the witness was not responsive to the question asked, and that defense counsel did not believe the question was asked. The objection was overruled, whereupon the jury was brought into open court. After determining from the foreman that the "witness" referred to was the complainant, the court read the following to the jury without further objection:
ANSWER: Well, he wanted a cigarette, so I got one and handed it to him, and handed him the lighter and he wouldn't take it, he made me light his cigarette and then he said he was so sorry that he did this, that I was such a beautiful woman that he felt real bad and that he had never done this before and that he had been smoking pot and that somebody had turned him on to some good speed and he was all mixed-up and didn't understand why he did it.
We hold that the trial judge properly overruled defense counsel's objection as stated in the record. An objection must be specific and explicit to preserve error. McWherter v. State, 607 S.W.2d 531 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Spencer v. State, 438 S.W.2d 110 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). Additionally, the objection must be made on the proper grounds. Graham v. State, 546 S.W.2d 605 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). While defense counsel did object on the grounds of non-responsiveness and that he believed the question was not asked, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. State
...1973); Martin v. State, 459 S.W.2d 845 (Tex.Crim.App. 1970); Maldonado v. State, 425 S.W.2d 646 (Tex.Crim.App. 1968)); Thomas v. State, 624 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1981, no pet.) (where record reflected that no objection was made to the trial court's failure to follow Article 36.2......
-
Hefner v. State
...dates and amounts." This request, even if it is construed as an objection, is not sufficiently specific to preserve error. See Thomas v. State, 624 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1981, no writ). Accordingly, Hefner's seventh point of error is In his eighth point of error, Hefner asse......
-
Solis v. State
...resworn at time of trial, no error is preserved. Black v. State, 634 S.W.2d 356, 358 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1982); Thomas v. State, 624 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1981); Cooper v. State, 578 S.W.2d 401, 404 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). Appellant's second ground of error is The appellant contends in......
-
Thorn v. State
...State, 568 S.W.2d 309, 311 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). It is not the function of this court to reweigh the evidence presented at trial. Thomas v. State, 624 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1981, no pet.). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, we must affirm appellant's con......