Wussow v. State
| Citation | 507 S.W.2d 792 |
| Decision Date | 03 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47889,47889 |
| Parties | William Henry WUSSOW, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
LeRoy Peavy, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James Brough and Dennis Green, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty. and Buddy Stevens, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Upon a plea of not guilty to the court, appellant was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol; punishment was assessed at a $250 fine.
Appellant contends testimony and physical evidence were improperly admitted against him, having been illegally obtained while he was under arrest without benefit of Miranda 1 warnings, and that absent the improperly admitted evidence, the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.
After parking his car near a cafe, appellant was approached by two police officers who had observed him driving with a defective headlight. The officers approached appellant, met him between the cars on the parking lot, and engaged him in a conversation regarding the defective headlight. It then began pouring down rain so one of the officers asked appellant to sit in the police car so they would be out of the rain while they issued a ticket for the defective headlight. At this time the other officer asked appellant if he had a pistol or weapon on him, to which he replied 'yes' and lifted his shirt tail, showing the pistol in his belt. The pistol was then seized and appellant placed under arrest.
After appellant's motion that certain answers 'be stricken from the record,' the trial court ruled 'The answers to any questions answered after the officer stated that he was under arrest or any facts, the Court will absolutely disregard them.' From this it is not clear whether the court was ruling that answers given in court would be disregarded, or any answers given by appellant at the scene would not be considered. Appellant should have secured a clearer statement of the court's ruling, since testimony stricken from the record cannot be considered by this Court in weighing the sufficiency of the evidence, and the existing statement of the trial court's ruling leaves it uncertain precisely what testimony was being stricken.
In this case, however, even if the ruling be read as having stricken all answers given by appellant after he was under arrest, the evidence is sufficient.
One officer testified that appellant was not free to leave the scene after he said that he had a pistol on him. The other testified 'He is under arrest when ever we approach him or when we find out that he has violated the law And we put him in our custody.' (Emphasis added.) The latter statement is in general language, and does not constitute evidence as to when this appellant was placed under arrest. The first, although stating when appellant was placed under arrest in relation to his statement that he had a pistol is his possession, does not state when the display and seizure of the pistol occurred in relation to the arrest. Although these three events did not occur...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State
...detained while a traffic ticket was being written and was not placed under arrest until after the pills were found. Cf. Wussow v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 507 S.W.2d 792. Appellant was not in custody at the time of the search, and thus the search was not incident to arrest for the traffic violat......
-
Christian v. State
...to Sullins appellant was not under custodial arrest, Thomas v. State, 572 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) and cf. Wussow v. State, 507 S.W.2d 792 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), and thus not then vulnerable to a legally authorized incident search of his Next, from the time he exited his car and closed......
-
Johnson v. State
...prior to his physical seizure by police was not fruit of a poisonous tree because no arrest had occurred). See also, Wussow v. State, 507 S.W.2d 792, 793 (Tex.Cr.App.1974) (defendant's statements to police and exposure of concealed pistol made prior to arrest were admissible into However, e......
-
Linnett v. State
...detained while a traffic ticket was being written and was not placed under arrest until after the pills were found. Cf. Wussow v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 507 S.W.2d 792. Appellant was not in custody at the time of the search, and thus the search was not incident to arrest for the traffic violat......
-
Expunctions and Non-Disclosures
...that he may then be given a citation, but that in the end he most likely will be allowed to continue on his way. Id. In Wussow v. State, 507 S.W.2d 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that an individual suspected of driving without headlights, who was approa......
-
Expunctions and Non-Disclosures
...that he may then be given a citation, but that in the end he most likely will be allowed to continue on his way. Id. In Wussow v. State, 507 S.W.2d 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that an individual suspected of driving without headlights, who was approa......
-
Expunctions and non-disclosures
...that he may then be given a citation, but that in the end he most likely will be allowed to continue on his way. Id. In Wussow v. State, 507 S.W.2d 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that an individual suspected of driving without headlights, who was approa......
-
Expunctions and Non-Disclosures
...that he may then be given a citation, but that in the end he most likely will be allowed to continue on his way. Id. In Wussow v. State, 507 S.W.2d 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that an individual suspected of driving without headlights, who was approa......