*1 just ignore this case so guilt Den- dence extending the rule Jackson The statement juris purpose.” no, authority in this recognized however, made; admissibility have been of con should not diction governing and the oth- instruction fessions, hearings view of the court’s require to out-of-court introduced, no re- allegations er we hold based on motions is McCormick par error versible shown. illegal search seizure. 29; Evidence, Smith v. case, Ray, Section where, as in this ticularly true 58; Hopkins v. Tex.Cr.App., objection to record discloses valid 212, and State, Tex.Cr.App., 480 per admissibility of such evidence. cited therein. trial court’s refusal no error ceive grant hearing a out such raised grounds of error find other However, hearsay tes where appellant’s pro se brief to be without probable establish timony required cause, be held. hearing judgment such is affirmed.
Appellant contends making improper com
trial court erred in by of the trial during the course
ments
commenting on the evidence
Appellant here one broad states contains impermissibly several
error which the trial
specific allegations under Arti be considered and cannot 9, cle Section V.A.C.C.P. HUNNICUTT, Willie Charles State, Tex.Cr.App., 485 S.W.2d Crocker v. therein. 568,and cases cited The STATE error Appellant contends that reversible Nos. 46880-46883. prosecutor stated committed when the prison. had from escaped that he Oct. 1973. in his own de Appellant testified Rehearing As Modified on fense, admitted and on direct examination previous felony On convictions. cross-examination, district at the assistant testimony regard
torney attempted to elicit penitentia
ing appellant’s escape from the under
ry serving while out Appellant object prior conviction.
ed, rule the the court could but before Honor, he es
prosecutor stated, “Your That’s a fel penitentiary.
caped
ony offense.” trial court
and moved for mistrial. both, after both sides
overruled rested, both counsel
had instructed arguments. in their the matter
mention jury, the court charging the
Before “disregard the them to
instructed
elicited the State as prison. That’s having escaped from
Beam is no evi-
really not admissible
Wynn Stanton, (Court-ap- Dallas G. pointed), Wade,
Henry Atty., Robert T. Bas- kett, Atty., Dallas, Asst. Dist. D. Voll- ers, Stevens, Atty., Buddy State’s Austin,
ROBERTS, Judge. convicted, sepa- on four indictments, rate of robbery the offense of punishment His firearms. was assessed imprisonment life in each case. indictments, which out of arose robbery manager super- of a Dallas market and of three its individual em- ployees, together were tried trial. only brief, which relates trial, to this grounds sets out the same of error as to each offense. first error urges of
that the trial court denying erred in his motion to overruling and in objection to the admission of certain evi- dence as a obtained result of his arrest. which com- group consists of a sequentially- numbered one-dollar bills which were taken person arrested with him. transcript testimony indi
cates
objection
made
when testimony relating
money
to the
first
Additionally, appellant
himself,
took the stand
and on cross-exam
ination
money
admitted that the
had been
possession.
in his
In view of
money,
admission that he had
Court
legality
requested
need not
the witness be examined
consider
the search.
(Tex.
McCombv.
outside
Cr.App.1972);
to limit his
instructed the witness
Moulton
trial,
offense on
(Tex.Cr.App.1972),
granted appellant’s
and retired the
request
cited.
*3
briefly ques
the
After
witness was
ground
of error
jury,
of the
tioned outside the
complains
photographic
of the
identifica
any ques
appellant objected to
counsel
police
procedures
used
the
because
tion
tioning regarding
The
the arrest warrant.
identification
at a time when
the
occurred
inquired
objection and
court sustained this
appellant
custody
in
without
was
he
appellant’s
counsel whether
wished
attorney.
the services of an
disregard.
jury
the court to
the
instruct
Further,
the
declined the
Counsel
offer.
be
Such
contention has been held to
he asked for a
does not
that
record
show
State,
without
Barrientez v.
487 S.
See Hunter
There was no error.
mistrial.
(Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Piper
W.2d 97
v.
State,
(Tex.Cr.App.
v.
481
806
State,
(Tex.Cr.App.1972);
these, relating thereto and no error disregard admonition Thompson 486 S.W.2d served. any harm ordinarily sufficient to overcome (Tex. Cr.App.1972). 343 argument. prejudice or caused (Tex.Cr.
Hodge v. State, 482 statement, App.1972); Haywood S. As to earlier have (Tex.Cr.App.1972). W.2d record reflects when given admonitions concluded the two given counsel for prej- here were sufficient to overcome improper
udicial effect statements. of these filed a pro se has challenges
brief in which he the wit- complaints Since
nesses’ identification. photographic identifica-
are related to the procedure previously (see
tion discussed two,
discussion error number
supra), fur- we need not discuss brief say presents
ther than to that it no error. judgments are affirmed. *4 ON APPELLANT’S
OPINION REHEARING
MOTION FOR original opinion in note that appellant had been
these cases stated that imprisonment for each of-
assessed life In cause This is incorrect. number
fense.
46,881 impris- original of life re- (dated July 1972), was
onment imprisonment on forty years’
formed to this, original our
July 1972. In view
opinion accordingly, and the modified modified, is affirmed.
judgment, as
H. Tati Santiesteban Marshall I. Yaker, Paso, El for ANAYA, Reynaldo Simmons, Steven W. Weiser, Gary B. Dist. Atty., Paso, El The STATE of Vollers, Atty., Austin, D. No. 46720.
DALLY, Commissioner. burglary conviction is with the theft; intent punishment, to commit years’ imprisonment. five granted probation. sufficiency evidence is chal- error, lenged in grounds of appellant urges in another