*1 1»6 objection at raised hearing; no claim conclusion of the time or
was advanced either at place either that the offense took outside the
outside the State of Texas or Additionally,
United States. adduced
much circumstantial evidence place El took
trial the offense
Paso, Though no harm shown Texas.1 case, hope certainly present we would alleged place the future clarity. with more be shown
offense would where, as especially clear necessity case, city in such involved lies neighboring nation proximity to our
close
of Mexico.
Finally, appellant contends addict, should he is heroin
since the Narcotics Rehabilita
been committed im Program instead
tion Act presented to
prisoned. The issue was no presents decision judge. His
trial discretion.
abuse of is affirmed. HOAGLAND,
Billy Texas, Appellee.
The STATE Texas. Criminal
Court of 28, 1973.
March May 16, names, indicating that the of shopping and street centers refers to various 1. The transpired in El Paso. fense *2 that he did not touch testified parts. did girl’s private breasts complaining witness asked him if tickled his when he his beard wife her, it kissed and when he told her that did, girl kissed him. rebuttal, ten-year-
In called a girl ap- old she who testified that was on pellant’s garage boat when he ex- posed himself and told her that he would show her how to make babies. testi- She up fied that he moved hands and down his on himself and she saw some “white stuff” eleven, come girl, out. Another twelve years of age at the time of testi- trial, fied appellant, while on boat his placed Lake his hand under part bottom bathing of her suit and on her private parts. testimony girls these was ad- of two Colvin, Jr., Emmett and Lawrence B. purpose showing for the lasciv- of Mitchell, Dallas, ious intent and it was so limited Wade, Henry Atty. and Mike Dist. G. charge. court’s McCollum, Atty., Asst. Dist. D. Jim Vollers, Atty., State’s Hut- Robert A. Appellant contends that since the
tash, Austin, Atty., Asst. State’s for the complainant did not tell her mother State. some six her weeks after incident that testimony corroborated, be needed be outcry. He cause she did not make an OPINION rape rule in cases should DOUGLAS, Judge. apply. This is an from a conviction for complainant appel- testified that the fondling of by placing offense his hand promise lant told her to that she would not against the breast of a female under the threatening” tell “more of a tone. She age years. of fourteen assessed did not tell her it when she mother about punishment years. at two got something first it home because was that she did not want talk and if about sufficiency of the evidence is chal- tell, something she did she was afraid lenged. complaining witness was elev- happen. finally told her mother She years en age of on the date in thinking about it all the time be- twelve at the time of the testi- trial. She “bugging cause it me so was much.” fied that she at appellant’s was home aon Sunday jump trampoline afternoon to on a applied Even if outcry we the rule as to yard the back cases, rape to visit son. She as we do in related Hoagland while was run- complainant Mrs. still need not ning part a vacuum State, cleaner in another Tex.Cr.App., In Uhl v. 479 S.W.2d house, her, pulled kissed testimony this held that of a Court sweater, breasts, off her pulled touched her prosecutrix in a under fifteen jeans her private years down touched her age need not be corroborated. parts. State, 152 There cited Hindman v. we Next, complaint is made because where 211 S.W.2d
Tex.Cr.R. argument in his referred rape by force cases noted that other two transactions with the upon the be sustained will conviction was before This evidence a female uncorroborated proving lascivious in purpose of report of for the prompt outcry or fails to make *3 of, reasonable deduc is tent. A discussion so opportunity to do an the when is from, jury before the tion the evidence further reasonably The Court afforded. permissible. error is shown. rape cases statutory pointed that in arise, since the of- issue of consent cannot erred that court consent complete or without fense is with jury asked answering question by in a prosecutrix. was, The “If had retired. sentence, probated can we
we recommend We hold help?” require Defendant seek medical complainant need not judge appellant asked the trial Counsel for support the to The evidence is sufficient yes. to answer conviction. reply jury: “In The court instructed the you question, are instructed to the above is contended “the trial court com- It that require Jury that the defendant cannot to failing jury in to instruct ” help. . . to seek medical . disregard improper jury argument of prosecutor grant in to mo- failing un The was not so authorized tion for mistrial.” 42.12, 6, der Article Section V.A.C.C.P. The to allow such an addi court’s refusal prosecutor The stated compliance tional is in with Arti condition heard witnesses were friends character who 3a, 42.12, cle Section Ann.C.C.P. Vernon’s appellant and business associates of No error is shown. testify more that furnish him would to with a business and home to come Appellant complains the court erred preach- for visits. He also stated that admitting in be- the extraneous offenses er would came in and told them adequate op- cause have his counsel did not worship a in and a home furnish church to portunity preparation. for conference or stay asked: to then in. deprived contends that this the accused you, gentlemen, one ladies and “Which of effective assistance of counsel. is him little going to furnish the next court, gave upon request, defense girl?” by counsel a list of witnesses to be used require refused State. The court to stated, “Objec- for the defense Counsel might to list the State witnesses tion, The court sustained Your Honor.” in rebuttal. stated, mo- “I counsel move it. Defense stated, 5 6.” The court “Over- tions witness, used one State it out the record.” Coun- ruled. Strike 1 complainant, making its case in chief. stated, 6.” motions 5 and sel then “Also appellant committing After denied offense, were the other transactions ordered it stricken proved proved. prima re A case was No further instruction was facie the record. testified, appar before the quested. for mistrial No motion ently have ground of no other witnesses would been allegations in the made. The except supported by record. No used were needed are not An not to tes- rebuttal. accused does have reversible error shown. concerning appears 6 were made evidence of transactions motions Nos. 1. It the with ac- did not know that the tify. State testify. require To
cused anticipate possible defense an ac- any all possible
cused and to furnish names of per-
witnesses and the court refuse to names
mit them to their were an require impractical would be
listed
and undue burden. Furth- hold that no error shown.
We
er, attempt has been no show any- otherwise) (or
motion new trial *4 credibility of
thing that would affect the
the other witnesses. shown, reversible affirmed.
ODOM, Judge (concurring).
I concur the results reached herein.
However, I with the rule an- agree do not opinion al- majority
nounced
lows the state of witnesses non-disclosure
just may because rebuttal
only. Witnesses should disclosed
there is a will be used likelihood
any stage of the trial.
ROBERTS, J., concurring joins
opinion. Gardere, Nicewanter, Porter &
Dan L. DeHay, for Russ, Philip Russ, & Skibell R. appellee. COMPANY, CENTRAL BANK & TRUST McKAY, Justice. alleg- writ petition This is a NEWMAN, Appellee.
Donald H. juris- ing that without the trial personam judgment inan diction to render against appellant. Texas, Court of Civil Tyler. February Newman Donald H. April 26, 1973. Na- against the First brought suit May Corsicana, Goodbody & tional Bank of Pierce, Fen-
Company, Lynch, and Merrill bank, with- alleging ner and Smith to it authority, transferred Denver, Trust Central Co. of Bank