Washington v. State, No. 38873
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | WOODLEY |
| Citation | 400 S.W.2d 756 |
| Docket Number | No. 38873 |
| Decision Date | 05 January 1966 |
| Parties | Jackie WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Page 756
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1966.
Second Motion for Rehearing Denied March 30, 1966.
Charles W. Tessmer, Dallas (On Appeal Only), Emmett Colvin, Jr., Dallas (On Appeal Only), for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Jim Zimmerman, Mike Everett and W. John Allison Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
The conviction is for murder; the punishment, fifty years.
This is a companion cause to Fuller v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 397 S.W.2d 434, dated January 5, 1966.
It is undisputed that the deceased was killed when he was shot with a shotgun about 2 A.M., Saturday, August 30th.
The testimony of the state reveals that on August 29, Jean Carter, age 17, lived with her mother and grandfather; that she had known the appellant, age 18, three or four years, and had previously dated him without the knowledge of her mother who had forbidden it; that she had known the deceased about three weeks before August 29, and had seen him during the last week except Tuesday night; that she went to see the appellant on Wednesday, August 26, at his grandmother's and they went to a friend's house, and then she returned home about noon; that she had visited him numerous times before at his grandmother's; that her mother left home about 1 P.M., and her grandfather about 4:30 P.M.; that the appellant telephoned about 4:30 P.M. and wanted her to meet him at the store nearby but she declined. Jean further testified that she telephoned the deceased about 6:30 P.M., and that they were together that night and returned home about midnight; that about 2 A.M. while she and her mother were doing some housework and the deceased was sitting in the house but visible from the outside, they heard some noise which caused the deceased to go out on the porch and then she heard a shot, and the deceased said he had been shot and the police were notified.
Mrs. Ruby Bynum testified that she was a next-door neighbor of Jean Carter, her mother and grandfather; that from her kitchen window about 4:30 P.M., August 29, she saw the appellant with an open
Page 758
knife gripped in his hand go from the front porch of the Carter house to the side door, and when no one responded he returned to the front door and after getting no response he slammed the door and kicked the screen, and on returning to the side door repeated the same acts. She further testified that after a shot from a gun awoke her early Sunday, August 30, she saw a man lying on Carter's front porch and heard him cry for help.The testimony further reflects that shortly after 11 P.M., August 29, the appellant, driving his car, began asking different persons at various places about a gun, and still unable to locate a gun, with several boys in the car, he said as they passed Carter's house where a 1964 yellow Impala was parked in the driveway that 'if he had a gun he could blow him out of that chair'; later, appellant's inquiry of another person failed to locate a gun, and then he asked. Charles Fuller who let him have a shotgun but he had no shells, and next he asked W. E. Thomas who gave him some shells, and Thomas joined the group which made seven in the car. After getting the shells the appellant drove directly to a place near the Carter house where he parked. Appellant handed two of the boys a brick while...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington v. State of Texas, No. 649
...refused to allow Fuller to testify. Petitioner's conviction followed, and it was upheld on appeal by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 400 S.W.2d 756. We granted certiorari. 385 U.S. 812, 87 S.Ct. 123, 17 L.Ed.2d 54. We reverse. I. We have not previously been called upon to decide whethe......
-
Ex parte Zerschausky, No. 40133
...its Criminal District Attorney, was responsible for having such witnesses indicted as accessories. In Washington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 400 S.W.2d 756, the court sustained the objection of the state to the calling of Fuller, a co-principal who had been convicted of the murder for which Wash......
-
Peaden v. State, No. 45623
...Jones' testimony as being that of an accomplice witness. Nothing is presented for review. Castillo v. State, supra; Washington v. State, 400 S.W.2d 756 The appellant has urged arguendo if Frenchy was not an accomplice witness his testimony is exculpatory and therefore not corroborative. An ......
-
Hardin v. State, No. 44070
...supra. In Washington, the defendant and the denied witness were coindictees for the same offense. Washington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 400 S.W.2d 756. In Cruz, the defendant and the denied witness were co-defendants indicted for the same offense. In each case the materiality of the testimony o......
-
Washington v. State of Texas, No. 649
...refused to allow Fuller to testify. Petitioner's conviction followed, and it was upheld on appeal by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 400 S.W.2d 756. We granted certiorari. 385 U.S. 812, 87 S.Ct. 123, 17 L.Ed.2d 54. We reverse. I. We have not previously been called upon to decide whethe......
-
Ex parte Zerschausky, No. 40133
...its Criminal District Attorney, was responsible for having such witnesses indicted as accessories. In Washington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 400 S.W.2d 756, the court sustained the objection of the state to the calling of Fuller, a co-principal who had been convicted of the murder for which Wash......
-
Peaden v. State, No. 45623
...Jones' testimony as being that of an accomplice witness. Nothing is presented for review. Castillo v. State, supra; Washington v. State, 400 S.W.2d 756 The appellant has urged arguendo if Frenchy was not an accomplice witness his testimony is exculpatory and therefore not corroborative. An ......
-
Hardin v. State, No. 44070
...supra. In Washington, the defendant and the denied witness were coindictees for the same offense. Washington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 400 S.W.2d 756. In Cruz, the defendant and the denied witness were co-defendants indicted for the same offense. In each case the materiality of the testimony o......