*1 clearly does commended and is to be error.
reflect carefully the court’s reviewed have
We appellant’s objections light
charge in the find error. no reversible
thеreto give appel refusal court’s apparent danger charges on requested
lant’s prosecution of this causing injury, in a
nature, Nоr there was not error. request refusing charge inserted be
the word “wanton” “negligent” the words
before [sic] guilt under
“negligence,” finding dependent was not ordinanсe up wilful but or his acts were wanton ordinary guilty finding that he was on a
negligence. affirmed. judgment is Court approved by the
Opinion Dugas, Jr., Orange, appellant.
Louis MELANCON, Appellant, Roy Allen Lindsey, W. R. De Witt, Atty., Beaumоnt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Austin, The STATE Appeals of Texas. Court McDonald, judge. 17, 1964. June force; punish- offense is Denied Oct. ment, years in thе state confinement Rehearing Denied Motion for Second penitentiary. 18, 1964. evidence refleсts
The state’s stop forced work, driving from home car while question. around 11:15 P.M. on the car, approаched identi- then officer, and said he fied himself as destination, jail. His taking her to jail, however, truth lonely After some road. he drove to prosecutrix’ struggle in which back *2 605 appellant by objection dress was torn off and threats the record reflects that no of pistol, raped. prosecutrix interposed by appellant with a was kind was the until the substantially witness had testified to reported The was to the the complained the evidence here of. by day next was examined objection coming as it did at the conclusion a medical that she had doctor who testified testimony Gephart of the was too late. prior hаd to the intercourse within 24 hours State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. examination. The husband of the therein; and cases cited 5 Sec. Tex.Jur.2d they cutrix testified that had had inter- course for a week to the assault. prosecutrix, later, Appellant contends, a secondly, about week that company the her and a minister of husband was committed when the trial court (who as testimony saw her assailant identified allowed concerning appellant’s Arthur, appellant) driving his car in Port arrest without a warrant and evidence whereupon num- made, she tоok down his license relative a to search then such reported police. ber and illegal. Agаin the to the arrest same was we are constrain Through description appellant’s a car ed appellant’s of to conclude that contention acquired, and the license number an so is without merit. While we are convinced appellant subsequently arrest of made. was legal require the arrest was under the ments Ann.C.C.P., of Article piece Prosecutrix identified in court a we do necessary not dеem it illustrate to her dress which was found at the scene of our reasoning in regard this as three the attack, jug, the and also identified a thermos principal objects four by found the search iron, piece a a western and an imita- hat of the automobile were introduced without pistol, tion which had been taken from objection. Following the reasoning appellant’s during arrest, being car his Gephart, supra, any рreserved error was not objects the same that were the car of for review this Court. her assailаnt the the attack. Finding the support evidence sufficient to Casts of tire tracks at the scene of thе jury’s verdict, the and no reversible error assault were into evidence and introduced appearing, judgment the is affirmed. it was shown that those matched a casts tire from car. Appellant’s On Motion Through parents his ex-wife and his MORRISON, Judge. presented. defense of alibi was theory rejected by defensive was the Appellant strenuously takes us to task jury and the support evidence is sufficient to opinion for the in our holding their verdict. objection his testimony to the of the State’s his brief relies two Marilyn late, witness Harraman came too propositions reversal, of law for the first objection timely and insists that the being that the trial in allоwing court erred made. the Marilyn state’s witness Harraman to Upon testify re-examination had at 3:00 P.M. record we remain convinced that assault,
afternoon of the wit stopped his car permitted testify practically ness to told her and girl friend that he was all the police officer, events which she observеd before money showed them some proper objection made, they and further said if get in would the сar he find that at the close of give testimony would when them money all the they wanted. fully court was made to understand areWe not called on to decide appellant’s complaint, nature of he instruсt whether this evidence was admissible as jury specifically ed the to consider money
girl’s the offer testimony about ride and
.and invitation to take a
regard it no and consider the same *3 instruction, purpose in Such the case.
n our opinion, сure sufficient to testimony. Har- admitting the witness’s State, Tex.Cr.App.,
ris v.
and cited. authorities there proper
Remaining convinced
position on of the case was made
submission, rehearing is the motion for
overruled. RAMIREZ, Appellant,
Joe Antonio, Obledo, appel- Mario San G. The STATE of lant. Atty., Barlow, G. E. Dist. James Appeals Texas. Court of Benavides, Raymond Earl Wietzel A. Hill, Antonio, and Attys., Asst. San Austin, for DICE, Commissioner. pun- burglary; is for
The conviction ishment, under Art. enhanced Ann.P.C., by reason conviction charaсter, an offense of like years. that the state’s evidence shows Guillen, op- witnesses, cuting Anita Joe located Lounge, the Gaslite at
erated Antonio. San Culebra Street night in Mrs. Guillen testified that on mid- question place around closed all leaving night and before she locked windows, doors, sure checked She stated were broken. that no windows appellant, place, left the that after she drinking beer, accom- had been inside who restaurant, panied her and some friends to