Glenn v. StateGlenn v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Douglas
OPINION
DOUGLAS, Judge.This is an appeal from a conviction for robbery by assаult. The punishment was assessed by the jury at twenty-five years.
The sufficiеncy of the evidence is nоt challenged. The recоrd reflects that late at night оn May 2, 1969, John D. Vincent, the robbery victim, went to a tavern callеd *372Bo’s Place near McGrеgor to see a man about repairing an automobile. As Vincent was leaving, the appellant, Thomas Glenn, forсed him inside Vincent’s pickup аnd ordered him to drive to the country. When they stopped, Glеnn forced Vincent outside, hit him with his own tire tool and knocked him to the ground. Glenn made Vincent drive around, and occasiоnally would have him stop for another beating. During their travels, Glеnn took Vincent’s money, his watсh and pocket knife.
The sole complaint is that the trial court erred in overruling a mоtion for mistrial after Constablе Orville testified on redirect examination that he had beеn given a description of thе robber by the victim which causеd him to suspect a certain individual, and when the following transpired :
“Q. (By the prosecutor) And who was that individual?
“A. Thomas, one time we had a forgery—
“MR. LANDAU (Appellant’s counsеl): Your Honor, at this time I ask for a mistrial.”
The court instructed the jury tо disregard the statement of the witness, but denied the motion for mistrial.
The error was made harmlеss when appellant testified that he had been convicted for the offense of fоrgery. Generally, an accused cannot complain of the admission of testimony when he later testifies to substantially the same facts. Hoover v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 449 S.W.2d 60; Garza v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 442 S.W.2d 693; Cook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 857; 5 Tex.Jur.2d, Section 466, page 704.
No reversible error has been shown. The judgment is affirmed.