Zepeda v. State
| Decision Date | 15 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 33827,33827 |
| Citation | 172 Tex.Crim. 86,353 S.W.2d 221 |
| Parties | Richard C. ZEPEDA, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Maynard F. Robinson, San Antonio, for appellant.
Charles J. Lieck, Jr., Cr. Dist. Atty., by Edward E. DeWees, Jr., Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for unlawfully carrying a pistol; the punishment, a fine of $500.
The evidence was undisputed that on the night in question the appellant, while carrying a pistol on his person, came to the Fiesta Club, a night club on Commerce Street in the City of San Antonio, where his former wife was employed. The wife testified that some thirty minutes before appellant came to the club, he had called and invited her to supper; that she refused and appellant then stated that he was coming to the club where she was employed; and that she asked him not to come. She stated that when appellant arrived he went to the bar and asked her for a beer; that she first told him she could not serve him because 'the boss' didn't want him in the place; that appellant then put his hand into his coat; that, thinking he had a gun, she served him the beer. She further stated that while he was drinking the beer appellant looked at her employer and said, 'I sure could shoot him from where I am right now.' She stated that she then informed her employer that she thought appellant was armed, and the police were then called. The proof shows that when the police arrived, appellant was searched and a .22 calibre pistol, loaded with six cartridges, was taken from his person.
[172 TEXCRIM 88] Appellant, testifying as a witness in his own behalf, admitted going to the Club Fiesta and having the pistol on his person. In explaining his carrying the pistol, appellant testified that on the night in question he was working for his cousin, Raymond Garza, at a tavern on Zarzamora Street in the city; that while he was working Garza called and instructed him to bring the money, which had been taken in at the place, to him in front of Schilo's by the Fiesta Club on Commerce Street. Appellant testified that he then took the money, which amounted to over $300, and a pistol from the place and drove to Commerce Street in a cab, where he delivered the money to Garza. Appellant stated that he then went into the club where his former wife was employed to see her about a doctor's bill for one of their children. He further stated that he was carrying the pistol because of the amount of money he was taking to Garza and that it was his intention to carry the pistol from the club to his home.
Raymond Garza, upon being called as a witness by appellant, corroborated appellant's testimony with reference to appellant bringing the money to him on the night in question.
The court, in submitting the issue of appellant's guilt to the jury, instructed the jury, '* * * If you believe from the evidence, or have a reasonable doubt thereof, that the defendant, Richard C. Zepeda, had the pistol at his place of work and was carrying the same home, following the most practical and direct route without any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State, 41697
...417 S.W.2d 165; Korb v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 402 S.W.2d 166; Ingram v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 363 S.W.2d 284; and Zepeda v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 86, 353 S.W.2d 221. In his sixteenth ground of error appellant attacks the verdict of the jury and contends that the jurors believed they only had thr......
-
Curlin v. State, 46628
...King v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 508, 243 S.W.2d 846 (1951); Barrientez v. State, 487 S.W.2d 97 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); Zepeda v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 86, 353 S.W.2d 221 (1961); Canizares v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 76, 157 S.W.2d 385 In ground No. 3 appellant complains of the argument of the prosecut......
-
Ewalt v. State, 35042
...obviated by the court's ruling unless the nature of the remarks is such as to obviously impair the rights of the accused. Zepeda v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 353 S.W.2d 221. Appellant urges as his second proposition of law that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the circumstances that......
-
Clayton v. State, 46605
...the error was not preserved. The State relies upon and cites Smith v. State, 437 S.W.2d 835 (Tex.Cr.App.1968) and Zepeda v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 86, 353 S.W.2d 221 (1961) in support of this contention. What was said in those cases is clearly not applicable to the facts of this case. In the ......