*1 271 Levelland, Hook, by Dan Kiser Hook & appellant. GARCIA, Appellant, Joe Levelland, Boedeker, Atty., E. W. Austin, Vollers, D. for the State. Texas. Criminal May BELCHER, Judge.
ishment, thirty-five years. jointly appeal only is tried. This appellant. that as de- reveals ceased, Enriquez, from walking toward the front cafe automobile aof stopped talking
he began with the pellant. The cafe was located an old house. standing While front of an automobile near looking cafe talking appellant, with Audon Gomez appellant, was behind cia (appellant’s brother), Richard were stand- ing around close “somebody After a short something,” started fight, toward After .the deceased fell to the and the lant persons and the named be- above gan running. suffered a cut or stab right
wound in neck side of the sharp ar- upon instrument. He dead hospital. undisputed rival at the the neck was the death. wound cause sharp posses- No seen instrument was per- sion or the other five sons, weapon was found at no scene. cut No one was seen strike or according testimony. ran, persons six cluding 'per- sons at the immediate when scene the de- ceased was cut. *2 general first and second was a objection to the testi- The
grounds Zapata. are identical and read: mony of The admission of the by Zapata other related than other evi- allowing in into “The erred pellant’s to kill threat the deceased was not four testimony of the witness- dence the At error. “night- another time three of the Alverez, state, Frank for es the Jessie walkers” Alverez, crowded around Han- Rodriquez, Hazel Zapata, and Juan of cousin the The appellant and cock, com- concerning extraneous crimes group were with the the at the defendant, because mitted the by time but did not attack Alverez. Juan bar case same was not material to the Rodriquez testified he knew that David of on and attack the character an Garcia was a member “nightwalk- of the the had not defendant when same ers” and “they” that beat him (Rodriquez) in put issue.” up one time and he never knew the reason for it. This joint was a trial appellant of request appellant The of the court at the (Joe Garcia) and his brother considera- jury to limit their instructed the “they” If cia. as used in sys- testimony the did scheme, and design to tion of such acts not include appellant request there tem, pur- was no for the and to not consider them to limit against its consideration David. pose showing his of character. appellant The did not testify or offer testimony The reveals that any testimony Gomez, in his behalf. Garcia, Audon Richard David and The court charged jury on circum- them- group called of a who were members stantial evidence and applicable the law to they would “nightwalkers”; that selves the principals. never go they and would together, around “be- together you” they were “jump unless The facts and in circumstances evidence themselves, no- they weren’t by cause one pertaining to acts as other tend to shown tell never body by and one theirself” could system show and intent and the they were they after. When who guilt of the charged crime and were admis- be a usually would together around there first in The and second evidence. sible always get fight with someone would of are grounds overruled. error there were whipping; at these times more, They together. of them three or that the trial court contended at a usually person one attack photo in two erred admission boys who be one of the there would body taken graphs of some- the one attacked about was mad at blood at home two of funeral thing. the reason the scene the crime for inflammatory and material they were not he was Zapata Frank testified that while to the case. there was a building outside of a which have been examined photographs take out bingo party, he saw light of the evidence considered approach knife case, no re- concluded that and it is that he would heard tell the deceased error is shown. versible “nightwalkers” were of the kill him. Four in his there concedes then. com ground of error The fourth
brief admissible. this charge jury at to the previous plains re- of the It court’s was admissible to show it does guilt stage the reasons that parties lationship between as principals clearly law submit the tent to not of the kill confusing, appellant, that it is Zapata testified to other acts committed to its mean speculate as “nightwalkers” jury or other while allows ing. one or more of them There present. objections given charge as not It does been considered.
thereto have It objections.
appear subject the law of adequately applies
fairly and in view of evidence.
principals error is overruled.
fourth *3 is affirmed. judgment
MORRISON, Judge (concurring). case, a peculiar of this facts
Under shown,
conspiracy having co-conspira- declarations of admissible, the rule as became
tors apply. offenses does not
extraneous Galveston, Baker,
Andrew Z.
lant. Damiani, Atty., M. Bruce Jr., Jules Attys., Wilson, Asst. Dist. Fort and R. L. McKinley COOPER, Appellant, D. Vollers Galveston Austin, for the State. Court of Criminal of Texas. DOUGLAS, Judge. June
ishment, years. five McKinley Coop- reflects
The record shooting er killed Carl Ollison Ollison, shotgun. Carl Flag- Marie, wife, worked Alta his Burton, who Mae ship Hotel in Galveston. appellant, also worked lived with Occasionally Flagship. home. take Mae Burton
his wife the deceased had asked After the wife so, and his do not to house Mae Burton to took informed them and appellant met where was not Mae Burton deceased that Appellant had car. ride in the Ollison ag- pocket appeared hand in gressive. home, the into their
The Ollisons went four or was some door of which back