Thompson v. State
| Decision Date | 09 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 51365,51365 |
| Parties | William THOMPSON, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Larry L. Miller, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., W. T. Westmoreland, Jr., and Les Eubanks, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of murder with malice. The jury assessed punishment at life.
Among other things, the sufficiency of the evidence to corroborate an alleged accomplice witness is challenged. On December 14, 1973, Wilma McCage, who resided just across the street from Tietze Park in Dallas, reported to police that she heard a loud noise that sounded like a shot between 12:15 a.m. and 12:20 a.m. At approximately 1:00 a.m., Officer Kenneth Maltby of the Dallas Police Department went to the park and found a body lying near the sidewalk with a bullet wound in the chest. The wallet found on the body contained a driver's license and cards bearing the name 'James Anderson.' Officer Maltby found the victim's car parked at the Quarterback Lounge approximately one mile from the park. Sonny Thompson and Betty Pruitt managed the Quarterback Lounge and they kept a .410 shotgun behind the bar.
Harold Taylor testified that at approximately 11:00 p.m. he and his wife had gone to the Quarterback Lounge on December 13, 1973. Present in the lounge when they arrived were Thompson, known was 'Sonny,' and his girlfriend, Linda Hines; the barmaid, Sharon Keatts; Bobby Vandiver and Betty Cannon, both of whom were deceased at the time of the trial; Helen Vargas; James Anderson (the deceased) and an unnamed couple with him. Taylor stated that as he walked in Thompson said, 'Are you ready to get down?' He didn't really know what Thompson meant 'because everything seemed peaceful and quiet . . .', but he responded, 'Yea . . . who with?' Appellant pointed to the deceased and the unnamed couple. At that time appellant said, 'I am fixing to have some trouble with them m_ _ f_ _.' After Anderson went to the rest room, Thompson followed and Taylor could hear blows being struck.
'. . . Then Sonny come out and shortly after that Jimmy Anderson come out and Sonny called him over there and said, 'Come on, buddy, let's forget all of this, let's go get high,' so Jimmy mumbled, he said, 'That's right, Sonny, you know I like you,' and Sonny put his arm around him, then they went, I guess you call it a storeroom back there in the back and--'
He then saw Thompson strike Anderson on the jaw and knock him to the floor. Thompson then asked Taylor to help him get Anderson out the back door. After they carried Anderson out, Thompson left and later drove up to the rear of the lounge in a Malibu which belonged to Linda Hines. When Taylor and Thompson put Anderson in the back seat Taylor noticed the shotgun in the front seat. Taylor rode in the back seat with Anderson to Tietze Park. After they arrived at the park Thompson parked and then got Anderson out of the car. Taylor related that Anderson was 'kind of staggering' and was not able to walk. When they got across the street, Thompson knocked Anderson down. Taylor further related that Thompson had whipped Anderson on more than one occasion and felt certain that he was going to do it again. Thompson asked Taylor, who had remained in the car, to bring the shotgun, which he did. Taylor then returned to the car. He testified that he thought Thompson was going to scare Anderson or hit him with the barrel of the gun. Instead Thompson '. . . took the shotgun and just placed it over him.' He then realized that Thompson intended to shoot Anderson. He tried to reason with Thompson not to shoot and told him that several people at the lounge had seen them leave with Anderson. Thompson replied, 'Oh, f_ _ him,' and shot Anderson in the chest. The two of them returned to the lounge in the car and Taylor then left with his wife.
Jerry Bob Combs, a roommate of Linda Hines and Helen Vargas, was called as a rebuttal witness by the State and he testified that some time in the early hours of December 14, 1973, he had received a call from Thompson who asked him to clean up the red and white Malibu and he did by using a cleanser and wiping the seats with a towel. Later the same day, around 2:00 or 3:00 p.m., Thompson called him again and asked him to dispose of the shotgun in the upstairs closet because it was the gun with which he had killed Anderson. Combs wrapped the gun, a single action .410 gauge shotgun, in cloth and placed it in a trash dumpster behind the apartments.
First, appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that Harold Taylor was an accomplice witness as a matter of law. Taylor's testimony does not make him an accomplice witness as a matter of law. A fact question as to his being an accomplice witness was submitted to the jury. This instruction was sufficient under the facts of this case. Van Buskirk v. State, 492 S.W.2d 279 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).
Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to corroborate the testimony of Taylor. Under the first contention just discussed, Taylor was not an accomplice witness. It was not necessary to corroborate his testimony. We hold that his testimony, along with other evidence presented, is sufficient to support the conviction. Brown v. State, 505 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
Appellant next complains that the prosecutor committed improper jury argument when he made the following remarks at the guilt stage of the trial:
He contends that the statement is a direct comment on his failure to testify. The argument of counsel on both sides has been reviewed and we find that the statement complained of, if in fact it was such a comment as alleged, was not so prejudicial that it could not be cured by an instruction. Appellant's objection was sustained and the jury was instructed to disregard the statement. No reversible error is shown.
Complaint is made of certain remarks of the prosecutor at the guilt stage of the trial. He contends that the prosecutor interjected his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State
...1063. This general rule also applies to constitutional questions. Mendoza v. State, 552 S.W.2d 444 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Thompson v. State, 537 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). In Dunlap v. State, 477 S.W.2d 605 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), this Court held that a defendant could not raise for the first tim......
-
Cannon v. State
...the comment was not so prejudicial that it could not be cured by an instruction to disregard. Wright v. State, supra; Thompson v. State, 537 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). Appellant's ground of error is overruled. Appellant also asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support an affirma......
-
Hawkins v. State
...appellant's failure to testify, we find that the court's instructions to disregard were sufficient to cure the errors, if any. Thompson v. State, 537 S.W.2d 732; Alvarez v. State, 478 S.W.2d 450. Appellant's tenth ground of error is without On October 1, 1980, following a hearing in the tri......
-
Jackson v. State
...to disregard was sufficient to cure the error, if any. Hawkins v. State, 660 S.W.2d 65, 79 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Thompson v. State, 537 S.W.2d 732, 734-35 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), Alvarez v. State, 478 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); see also Gardner v. State, supra, at 700 n. 13. Appellant's gro......