Williams v. State, 45755
| Decision Date | 07 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 45755,45755 |
| Citation | 491 S.W.2d 142 |
| Parties | Jesse B. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert E. Ford, Abilene, for appellant.
Ed Paynter, Dist. Atty., Britt Thurman, Asst. Dist. Atty., Abilene, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This appeal is taken from a conviction for the offense of assault with intent to commit murder with malice. Punishment was assessed at 10 years' confinement.
Appellant raises four grounds of error.
Initially, the sufficiency of the indictment is challenged. Appellant contends that it is so general, vague and indefinite that it did not enable him to intelligently defend against it. The indictment states that the grand jurors presented:
'. . . that on or about the 13th day of June, A.D., 1971, and anterior to the presentment of this Indictment, in the County and State aforesaid Jesse B. Williams did then and there unlawfully with malice aforethought, make an assault in and upon James H. Lister with the intent then and there to kill the said James H. Lister, . . . against the peace and dignity of the State.'
The indictment is complete in all respects; it is sufficient to apprise the appellant of the charges against him, to enable him to prepare his defense and to allow him to plead that judgment as a bar to any subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Arts. 21.02 and 21.11, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.
Appellant next contends that error was committed when a witness to the offense was allowed to read from a statement she had earlier given to the police. The record reflects that when the witness so testified and when the statement was admitted into evidence, defense counsel stated: 'We will object to that statement.' No grounds for objection were ever stated. Appellant's objection was not specific enough to preserve error. Flowers v. State, 482 S.W.2d 268 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Howard v. State, 480 S.W.2d 191 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).
In his third ground of error, appellant complains that the court erred in permitting the prosecuting attorney to 'impeach the defendant by wildly reading from his alleged private papers or files in a non informative manner.' Appellant contends that the method of impeachment was so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error. The record reflects that on several occasions, when questioned about his prior criminal record, the appellant responded, 'I can't remember.' Eventually, the following colloquy occurred:
Even if defense counsel's statements are viewed as proper objections, we perceive no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Denison v. State
...and fails to preserve error. See Bermudez v. State, supra; Hodge v. State, 631 S.W.2d 754 (Tex.Cr.App.1982), and Williams v. State, 491 S.W.2d 142 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). Further, the statement complained of was admissible as res gestae. In determining whether or not statements made by an accuse......
-
Gonzales v. State
...are not required to allege the elements of rape, murder or robbery. Small v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 466 S.W.2d 281; Williams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 491 S.W.2d 142; Ex Parte Ward, Tex.Cr.App., 470 S.W.2d 684; Welcome v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 438 S.W.2d 99; Bustillos v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 464 S.W......
-
Harris v. State, s. 48880
...is far too general to preserve the matter for our review. See Myers v. State, 491 S.W.2d 412 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) and Williams v. State, 491 S.W.2d 142 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). In addition, the record further reflects that both witnesses were later recalled in the presence of the jury and answered f......
-
Tapps v. State
...A party waives error in the admission of evidence by failing to object at the time evidence is offered. Williams v. State, 491 S.W.2d 142, 143 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); see also Tex.R.App. P. 33.1. Even properly preserved error can be waived by failing to object when other similar evidence is of......