History
  • No items yet
midpage
Perez v. State
491 S.W.2d 878
Tex. Crim. App.
1973
Check Treatment

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is assault to murder with malice; the punishment, seven (7) years.

Appellant was tried and convicted of attacking his wife with a knife.

Appellant’s sole ground of error relates to the admission of a hearsay statement of a neighbor that one of appellant’s children told her that on the day of the assault her father was sharpening a knife “so it would be ready when her mama came home”.

No objection was interposed during the direct examination of the witness. During cross-examination an objection was made to testimony, but no ruling was secured on such objection.1 The objection was not timely. Nothing is presented for review. Bitela v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 463 S.W.2d 738; Lucas v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 444 S.W.2d 638.

We further conclude that the statement was not so highly prejudicial and inflammatory, in view of the other testimony, as to require reversal.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

. Seemingly in answer to appellant’s request to instruct the jury to disregard the testimony, the court observed, “Sometimes I think all it does is call their attention to it” and counsel replied “You may be right.”

Case Details

Case Name: Perez v. State
Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Mar 28, 1973
Citation: 491 S.W.2d 878
Docket Number: No. 45960
Court Abbreviation: Tex. Crim. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.