Vavra v. State
| Decision Date | 11 January 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 32650,32650 |
| Citation | 343 S.W.2d 709,171 Tex.Crim. 24 |
| Parties | Richard Joseph VAVRA, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert B. Billings, Dallas, Charles William Tessmer (on appeal), Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., Robert E. Lyle, Dan Stansbury, Phil Burleson, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
This is a conviction upon a plea of guilty before a jury for the offense of fondling the sexual parts of a boy under the age of fourteen years; the punishment, twenty years.
The prosecuting witness, an eleven year old boy, testified that on April 20, 1959, he along with his younger brother and another boy, at appellant's request went to appellant's apartment and that while there, appellant fondled his sexual parts, committed an act of oral sodomy upon him, and had him commit such act upon him (appellant); that the appellant had him and his brother commit acts of rectal sodomy on each other; and that the appellant inserted a plastic tube in his (witness') rectum. He further testified that at appellant's request, he and the other boys removed their clothes and the appellant took pictures of them in the nude, and while testifying, he identified two of the pictures of himself and the other boy which were later introduced in evidence during the cross-examination of the appellant.
Proof was offered of the making by the appellant, on July 17, 1959, of a voluntary written statement to Deputy Sheriff McCurley pertaining to the offense charged and the boys involved in connection therewith which was introduced in evidence without objection. The statement in part reads:
Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, denied committing an act of sodomy, but did admit the commission of the act of fondling as alleged and also a 'similar' offense in 1954, and the placing of the plastic tube in the rectum of one of the boys. On cross-examination he identified two pictures of the prosecuting witness and the other boy, and pertaining to them he further testified:
Appellant insists that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the two nude pictures of the prosecuting witness and his companion because they solved no issue in view of his plea of guilty and were inflammatory and prejudicial.
By entering a plea of guilty the accused cannot restrict the right of the state to introduce relevant evidence showing the commission of the offense with which he is charged. 42 Tex.Jur. 78, Sec. 55; Booker v. State, 124...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. State
...of the jury, Wilson v. State, 456 S.W.2d 941 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), or by an instrument filed by the accused, Vavra v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 24, 343 S.W.2d 709 (1961). Is harm to be presumed These are just a few of the questions that come to mind regarding the Guster approach, and the instant ca......
-
Bosworth v. State
...and proceedings adduced on the trial. It was also approved by the attorneys, as well as by the trial judge.In Vavra v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 24, 343 S.W.2d 709 (1961), the statement of facts reflects that the indictment was read to the jury and the defendant entered a plea of guilty and was ......
-
Arnott v. State
...for possessing marihuana were held to be a part of the res gestae in Beeler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 374 S.W.2d 237. In Vavra v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 24, 343 S.W.2d 709, 712, the following is '* * * Acts done, statements and appearances of the participants, and other similar circumstances are......
-
Vasquez v. State
...F.2d 521, 525 (7th Cir. 1971) (decided under Fed.Rule Cr.Pro. 11, which is similar to Art. 26.13, V.A.C.C.P.) cf., Vavra v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 24, 343 S.W.2d 709 (1961). In the instant case, appellant answered that he would not 'change his answers' after being informed of the correct puni......