Xanthull v. State
| Decision Date | 27 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 34740,34740 |
| Parties | Theodore Roosevelt XANTHULL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
[172 TEXCRIM 481] Phillip Bordages, Beaumont, for appellant.
W. C. Lindsey, Criminal Dist. Atty., W. T. Wood, Jr., Asst. Criminal Dist., Atty., Beaumont, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is burglary; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for a term of six years.
We shall not set forth the facts of the case in detail but will relate only those necessary to our disposition of this appeal.
Upon cross-examination of the defendant by state's counsel, the following testimony was elicited:
'Q. How long would it take you to do five years doing good time in the Huntsville State Pen----?
'[Counsel for defendant]: Now, Your Honor, we object to that.
'The Court: Overruled. How long would it take? A. You can figure three-fifths of the time, that's approximately thirty-six months.
'Q. Doing five years.
[172 TEXCRIM 482] 'Q. You can cut five years almost in half on good time, can't you?
'[Counsel for defendant]: Let me have a Bill of Exception to this, Your Honor.
'The Court: All right.'
Appellant contends that the admission of the above testimony was error in that the state was permitted, over his objection, to bring before the jury evidence as to the operation and effect of the indeterminate sentence and parole laws together with their application to a sentence which he could receive if found guilty.
It is first noted that the objection was general in nature and that appellant's counsel might have made a more specific objection to the testimony. However, we believe that the evidence was obviously not admissible for any purpose, and therefore the general objection was sufficient. Fowler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 352 S.W.2d 838, and cases there cited.
In Pena v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 311, 129 S.W.2d 667, 669, Judge Krueger, speaking for this court, stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hernandez v. State
...Sec. 52, p. 113, 115 (2d ed. 1972); 4 Jones, The Law of Evidence, Sec. 28:2, p. 276 (6th ed. 1972). Also see Xanthull v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 481, 358 S.W.2d 631 (1962); Fowler v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 600, 352 S.W.2d 838 Ordinarily, the responsibility for making a timely and specific object......
-
Clinard v. State, 50538
...S.W.2d 388; Arnold v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 313, 248 S.W.2d 738; Fowler v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 600, 352 S.W.2d 838; Xanthull v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 481, 358 S.W.2d 631; Etchieson v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 606, 361 S.W.2d 711; and Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.......
-
Blackburn v. State, 10-90-135-CR
...of review of error in admitting it. Bridges v. City of Richardson, 354 S.W.2d 366, 368 (Tex.1962); see also Xanthull v. State, 172 Tex.Crim. 481, 358 S.W.2d 631, 632 (App.1962); 1 R. RAY, TEXAS LAW OF EVIDENCE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL § 25 (Texas Practice, 1980). An objection that evidence is "ir......
-
Thompson v. State
...this point on its merits--as we understand it--we do not perceive reversible error. The Appellant relies on Xanthull v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 481, 358 S.W.2d 631 (1962). The Xanthull case, supra, is distinguishable on the record and also on the crucial fact that the court's ruling was startl......