Vasquez v. State, 28002
Decision Date | 15 February 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 28002,28002 |
Parties | Reyes VASQUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Albert Armendariz and Mauro Rosas, El Paso, for appellant.
William E. Clayton, Dist. Atty., Edwin F. Berliner, First Asst. Dist. Atty., El Paso, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Attorney, Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for sodomy; the punishment, 15 years.
Appellant, a 23 year old citizen of Mexican extraction, born and reared in El Paso, in addition to attending a church school for a time, attended the El Paso public schools for five years, where instructions were carried on in Englich. Thereafter he worked at various jobs such as at the ice factory, parking cars at a parking lot and 'in a soda company selling soda'. He began drinking when he was 17. At first he drank every week-end after he received his pay, and later 'he got to drinking every day whenever he was able to buy it.' His drinking habits, according to the testimony, accounted for his employment being unsteady though he was 'working most of the time.'
His aunt, called as a witness in his behalf, testified that she had seen him drunk several times. Asked to tell how many times she had seen him drunk, she answered 'Well, I have no idea because there are so many times.'
On a Saturday afternoon a number of children were playing in an alley, among them being the 4 year old girl victim named in the indictment.
Appellant in a drunken condition made his appearance, and after a time took the little girl by the hand and led her away.
The United States Border Patrol maintains an observation tower some 150 feet in height, equipped with telephone, radio and high powered field glasses or binoculars, overlooking the river and railroad tracks in the vicinity of the Stantion Street Bridge.
Inspector Gamble, on duty in the tower on the afternoon in question, observed through the binoculars a man and child walking west along the railroad track some 75 yards east of the Stanton Street Bridge. They were some 15 feet from some 'willows' along the river bank and in the vicinity of a brick building referred to as the molasses factory, and were walking toward down town El Paso.
Inspector Gamble contacted his fellow Border Patrolman Herrera by two-way radio and continued to observe the man and child and to keep Inspector Herrera informed of their whereabouts until they were intercepted by Herrera.
Inspector Herrera testified:
'She was crying. I asked him what was the matter with her; if it was his daughter. He said, 'No', that she belonged to a friend of his. I asked him how come the child was with him. He said that he had seen another man with the child in Juarez, had her by the hand, and since he recognized the child as belonging to a friend of this, and knew where she lived, he was going to take her home. So then I asked him if he could take me so we could take the child home. He said,
Arriving at the child's home the officers learned that the police had been notified that she was missing and a little boy had told the mother that a grown man had taken her away.
The boy was called but failed to identify appellant as the man who had led the child away, and he was released.
The mother of the child victim testified that when the officers brought her home:
The mother soon found the Border Patrolmen, who had departed, and reported to them and appellant was soon thereafter taken into custody and identified by several of the children, including the boy who had failed to identify him previously. He was lodged in jail and the child was taken to the hospital for examination.
Appellant was thereafter delivered to officers of the City of El Paso and, after sleeping for some two hours, made a confession which was admitted in evidence and reads:
'I, Reyes (none) Vasquez, after having been duly warned by Detective Phil Lopez, the person to whom this confession is made; that any statement made will be reduced to writing and signed by me and may be used in evidence against me on my trial for the offense concerning which this confession is herein made, wish to voluntarily state the following facts for the reason that said facts are true, viz.
'My name is Reyes Vasquez, and I am 23 years of age; I was born in El Paso, Texas, and at present consider the following address my home, 918 South Mesa Avenue.
Dr. Frederick P. Bornstein, whose qualifications as an expert medical witness were admitted and stipulated, examined the child at 6 P.M. in the El Paso General Hospital. He described her appearance and findings in part as follows:
'
Dr. Bornstein testified that the injury to the perineum could have been caused by the stick which somebody had inserted; that the injury to the rectum could have been made by a man's penis but the injury to the vulva could not, and in this connection, testified: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nichols v. State
...se determinative of the voluntariness of a confession. United States v. Brown, 535 F.2d 424, 427 (8th Cir.1976); Vasquez v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 16, 288 S.W.2d 100, 109 (1956). The central question is the extent to which appellant was deprived of his faculties due to the intoxication. Vasqu......
-
Lavallis v. Estelle
...944 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Nash v. State, 477 S. W.2d 557 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Casias v. State, 452 S.W.2d 483 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Vasquez v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 16, 288 S. W.2d 100 (1946); Hanus v. State, 104 Tex. Cr.R. 543, 286 S.W. 218 (1928); Grayson v. State, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 573, 51 S.W. 246 (1......
-
Bell v. State
...of crime is not inadmissible merely because the accused, who is not insane, was of less than normal intelligence, Vasquez v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 16, 288 S.W.2d 100, and mere illiteracy has not been considered as a form of mental subnormality. Berry v. State, 58 Tex.Cr.R. 291, 125 S.W. 580.......
-
Warren v. State
...acquittals only prevent subsequent prosecutions where the defendant is subject to conviction for the same act. Vasquez v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 16, 288 S.W.2d 100 (1956). It has been held that receiving and concealing are separate and distinct offenses from theft, Punchard v. State, 124 Tex.......
-
Defenses and special evidentiary charges
...obtained as a result of such written statement. DeBolt v. State , 604 S.W.2d 164 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980); see also Vasquez v. State , 288 S.W.2d 100 (Tex.Crim.App. 1956) (liquor). §3:580 Did Not Give Defendant Warning or Defendant Did Not Waive Rights You are instructed that under our law a co......