Williams v. State
Decision Date | 22 February 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 32172,32172 |
Citation | 343 S.W.2d 263,170 Tex.Crim. 595 |
Parties | Frank Silas WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John Cutler, Houston, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Notice of appeal having been entered of record, the appeal is reinstated and our prior opinion and orders are withdrawn.
The offense is burglary; the punishment, 7 years.
The evidence shows that during the night of October 9th the Wilcox Drug Store, in Anahuac, was burglarized and an assortment of narcotics, a radio, a wrist watch, and other merchandise were stolen.
Entry into the building was made through the roof by boring holes and removing a portion thereof.
Appellant and one James Lyles were arrested in Houston the following afternoon when they were seen in the automobile which had been parked near the drug store, description and license number of which had been reported to Houston officers.
Lyles made a statement and showed the officers where the property introduced in evidence and identified as that taken from the Wilcox Drug Store, and some tools, were hidden in the weeds on Brian Bayou Road.
Appellant's confession made to County Attorney Jenson was introduced in evidence which reads, in part:
Appellant complains that the court erred in failing to charge the jury on the issue of insanity as a defense and on temporary insanity.
The burglary was committed on the night of October 9, 1959. Appellant was arrested the following day and two or three days later was released on bond. Trial was had on March 7, 1960.
The evidence which appellant contends raised the issue of insanity at the time the burglary was committed is that of his mother who testified that he was subject to epileptic seizures which lasted for five or ten minutes:
Mrs. Williams testified that he had a seizure a week before the trial; that about a month before the trial, and again three weeks later he cut his wrists; that he had been having epileptic seizures two years; that the last one was in the doctor's office and lasted 10 or 15 minutes; that he became unconscious when he had such seizures.
It will be noticed that the evidence does not suggest that appellant was in a seizure or was suffering the effects of a seizure at the time he went from Houston to Anahuac, climbed up the drain pipe to the roof of the drug store, took all the narcotics he could find as well as other property, and climbed out through the hole in the roof.
Mrs. Williams' testimony, on the other hand, shows that he could not have committed the burglary had he at the time been in a seizure or suffering from the effects of a recent seizure.
The issue of insanity at the time of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bratcher v. State
...Antonio 1984, pet. ref'd) (viewing the scene of an offense does not necessarily cause reversible error); Williams v. State, 343 S.W.2d 263, 265-66 (Tex.Crim.App.1961); 25 TEX.JUR.3d Criminal Law § 3513 Finding, for the reasons discussed above, that the "other evidence" was not received, we ......
-
White v. State
...because the conspiracy had not terminated where the insurance had not been collected nor the accomplice paid. Williams v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 595, 343 S.W.2d 263, held that the statement and the fact that a co-conspirator pointed out the tools used in, and the stolen property taken from, t......
-
Fuller v. State
...in failing to instruct the jury upon the law of insanity as a defense. Morris v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 382 S.W.2d 259; Williams v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 595, 343 S.W.2d 263; Cook v. State, 71 Tex.Cr.R. 532, 160 S.W. 465; Leeper v. State, 29 Tex.App. 63, 14 S.W. 398. It is noted that the rules ......
-
Chambers v. State, 47656
...the envelope. Broussard v. State, 505 S.W.2d 282 (No. 47,163, February 6, 1974), and cases therein in cited; Williams v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 595, 343 S.W.2d 263. Appellant in his third ground alleges reversible error in that 'members of the jury misunderstood the law in the court's charge ......