*1 attempting in in error offer reversible Appellant, OWENS, Jesse L. by the a written statement evidence referring argu- in prosecutrix in having prosecutrix ment the of displaying the previous trials and

two transcript in one of jury a evidence the Appeals prior of Criminal of Texas. the trials. Court 25, 1964. during record reflects While the Betty it examination of the Wells 13, 1965. Denied Jan. prosecutrix had made was shown that station, written statement at state’s identified as which statement was #1, it was not offered evidence

exhibit made known

nor contents thereof jury. proof was record reflects that

The objection, jury, without

made before previous trials. had argument stated in his

When state’s counsel story prosecutrix “told that times,” appellant’s objection sus

three disregard

tained instructed

the statement.

Although record counsel did re closing argument state’s purported

fer to a certain document be facts of a statement trial, were the contents thereof former jury.

not made known S are error overruled.

Points of #4 #6, error, point of last McFall, McFall, Chappell & John reversible is that counsel committed state’s Lubbock, for argument implying that error in his have informed appellant’s counsel West, Atty., Quinn should County Fred E. Wm. trial, of attorney, prior to the Atty., Lubbock, district Brackett, County of intercourse Austin, the evidence other acts Leon prosecutrix surprise the than rather trials. state at the WOODLEY, Presiding Judge. to be con- argument is not

While such doned, appears court sustained punishment, procuring; is appellant’s' objection and instructed thereto jail fine of and a $200. months Hence, to consider the same. not con- sét aside the necessary to find it no error shown. We reversible deprived appellant was viction because the affirmed. over- trial impartial of a fair and exception the court’s ruling appellant’s approved court. Opinion

247 up your made “Q. right. All You’d preserved properly was charge. The error prior to the time that mind to or in oral do in the raised hut was not that there in you went out that argument. Cab, that correct? Yellow Gabriel, Billy that The evidence information, Yes, “A. sir.” went in the person named male in the informa- described room motel testimony showing or tend- was no There prostitute and tion, named he met the where information ing that the officershad to show intercourse. for an act of her $10 procuring appellant engaged was procured. previously or had in fact traffic officer of was a Gabriel Department was work- who Lubbock Police entrapment procurer of a The issue of Sergeant Bill ing directions of under the testimony quoted and the Officer detective division. Bessent of the failing charge the erred in trial court and arrested came to the room failing on the law of prepared herself prostitute after she question to the to submit intercourse. the act of accomplice Gabriel an 'whether Officer was testimony required corrobo- upon Gabriel’s whose relied Officer The state Ann.C.C.P.; in- prove allegation of the Art. ration. See Vernon’s procured 170 Tex.Cr.R. that Sutton v. formation prostitute charged in the information. S.W.2d 452. charge exceptions com- charge The omission was error plain to instruct failure of the court appel- injure rights of the calculated to accomplice wit- with reference to lant. entrapment, and the law of

nesses is reversed and the cause issue of whether or not Officer submit the remanded. accomplice. an Gabriel was Upon examination the District At- MORRISON, Judge (dissenting). torney, Gabriel testified that he went to committed, being if a crime was motel to see questions propounded Had these not to trick someone. Bessent, agree Sergeant might I do not was raised.

On cross-examination he testified: being agree an the issue of Gabriel accomplice When witness is in this case. Well, words, “Q. your pur- in other examined, carefully dis- this entire record pose go and se- was to out there closes that Gabriel had been with the conviction, possible, if cure a only time and this was force a short against girl, a is that correct? n assignment. second third undercover or there, yes, “A. If there was one out duty patrol It was from His traffic. was to sir. night duty on the this that he was relieved forward, question. From this moment “Q. purpose? your That was super- every was under the direct act (cid:127) Yes, “A. sir. In truth vision and direction of Bessent new” in fact he went this “not so started, “Q. you your And also before him night motel because Bessent told $3.00 you up mind if opinion danger in this lies to do so. The sending could trick someone into the fact that will be misunderstood girl your you, that was also legal profession and law enforcement purpose, was it ?not repeatedly held officers. This Court has in- Yes,- an who has reliable “A. where officer sir. him to believe that leads formation prostitution are procuring and for the goes location a certain offenders, the is arresting the purpose of *3 i; Brown v. not raised. sue of 224, 85, 282 and S.W.2d 162Tex.Cr.R. 624, 288 State, 162

Cooper Tex.Cr.R. v. what occurred exactly 762. This

S.W.2d ground had reasonable

here. prostitution was believe that Lodge because he Acres

the Seven ob of times a number “there

he thing.”

serving sort this same think, did not the case who tried

Counsel reflection, en- issue of

after due not in he did

trapment because scholarly and twenty-five page Court discuss argument before this entrapment.

defense of Lopez v. relatively recent case

In the States, 427, S.Ct. 373 U.S. United 462,

1381, Supreme Court of 10 L.Ed.2d discussed annotated

the United States that it held also that case. See

was not raised 1302.

Harvard Law Review stated, respectfully dis-

For the reasons

sent. Wade, Howard, Faires P.

&Wade ap- appeal only), Corpus (on Christi VILLARREAL, Appellant, Raul pellant. Lattimore, Atty., Oscar L. Dist. Atty., Edinburg, Mclnnis, Dist. Austin, for Leon B. Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal 4, 1964. MORRISON, Judge. 9,

Rehearing Denied Dec. 1964. embezzlement; pun- ishment, years. Motion for Denied Second Jan. 1965. made an testified that she Mrs. Garces her

agreement to remodel with $1,455.- house, payment him a down was remodeled that her house