Wright v. State
| Decision Date | 23 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41992,41992 |
| Parties | Wesley William WRIGHT, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Max Blankenship, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Frank Coffey, Dist. Atty., William A. Knapp and Truman Power, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for murder; the punishment, fifty years.
The record reflects that Wesley William Wright, Jr., shot and killed Buford Dement with a pistol in the Glass Key Night Club in Fort Worth.
In the first ground of error it is contended that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence photographs of the interior of the Glass Key, because the proper predicate had not been laid. Albert Huey testified that he was the owner of the Glass Key, and before the photographs were offered, he stated that State's Exhibit No. 1 fairly and accurately represented his place on December 2, 1967, the date of the homicide; that State's Exhibit No. 2 fairly and correctly portrayed his place; and, that State's Exhibit No. 3 fairly, truly and accurately portrayed his place of business at the time. In Rodriquez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 399 S.W.2d 818, this court held: '* * * The photographs, having been shown to fairly and accurately represent the scene on the night of the killing, were properly admitted in evidence.'
A proper predicate was laid. No error is shown.
Appellant next contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence statements made by appellant at the time of the shooting. Sonny Samson Steel testified that he was a 'special policeman' or bouncer hired by the owner of the Glass Key; that appellant had a gun in his hand, and Buford Dement, the deceased, had his hand on the barrel. After appellant had shot Dement, Steel grabbed the gun and wrested it away from him. Dement said: 'Help me, man, I'm shot,' and he fell to the floor. Steel testified that he asked appellant: 'Why did you shoot him?', and the following transpired:
'Q. (Mr. Zachary, Assistant District Attorney) What did he reply?
Mr. Blankenship (Appellant's counsel): Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
'A. He told me, he said, 'well the black § o b is the cause of my brother being killed.'
'Q. Is that all that he said?
'A. No sir. He said, 'So I'm going to kill that § o b ."
The trial court had sufficient facts to conclude that the statement was spontaneous and was admissible under the 'verbal act'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harryman v. State
..."Yes, I know. I only wish it had been my mother." This Court held that this statement was res gestae of the arrest. In Wright v. State, 440 S.W.2d 646 (Tex.Cr.App.1969), the accused had a gun in his hand. He was arrested and was asked, 'Why did you shoot him?' He said that he was going to k......
-
Lucas v. State
...for an application of Miranda. Taylor v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 420 S.W.2d 601; Moore v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 440 S.W.2d 643; Wright v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 440 S.W.2d 646. Under any circumstances, the statement would have been admissible as res gestae despite the holding of Miranda. Hill v. Sta......
-
Miles v. State, 46172
...statements were res gestae of the arrest. The officer's question was neither leading nor suggestive of an answer. See Wright v. State, 440 S.W.2d 646, 648 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Spann v. State, 448 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Rice v. State, 480 S.W.2d 694 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). See also, Tezeno v......
-
DeHart v. State, 43943
...it was res gestae of the arrest. Art. 38.22, sec. 1(f) Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. Tilley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 462 S.W.2d 594; Wright v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 440 S.W.2d 646; Moore v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 440 S.W.2d There being no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed. ...