Pittman v. State

Court, this case would be to allow the under to, in interpretation,

the guise of Judicial

fact, amend the hold as statute. To hold, person us tax, personally subject

is not but the fact that he

whose connection is purchases

owns at some time land which past

in the has been used for one of

purposes enumerated under the articles on discussed, taxes would be

amusement herein process provisions violation due States, Constitution of United XIV, 2,

Amend. Constitution of §

Texas, 16, I, In 17 and 19. See §§ Corp.

ternational Harvester Credit v. Good

rich, 350 U.S. 100 L.Ed. 76 S.Ct. Wells,

681 (1955); Burnet 289 U.S. (1932);

53 S.Ct. L.Ed. 1439 Schlo Territory Alaska,

than v. F.2d U.S. 80 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d ;

(1960) Territory Craig En of Alaska v.

terprises, Inc., 397, A.L.R.2d 355 P.2d (Alaska Sup.1960). stated, judgments

For the reasons part lower courts should be affirmed part. reversed and rendered in PITTMAN, Appellant,

Melvin Stuart Texas, Appellee.

The STATE of 41393.

No. Appeals

Court Criminal of Texas.

July 24, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Oct. Rehearing

Second Denied Dee. Austin, Atty.,

Douglas, State’s for the State.

OPINION ONION, Judge. murder;

The punishment, offense is death. squarely

We are confronted with the question by the of whether the exclusion prospective jurors court of who had scruples inflic- against punishment of death as a crime tion deprived appellant of his constitutional right impartial jury. a a to trial fair This is the first time this has been Court upon pass called such a error since decision of United Supreme Witherspoon States Court 88 S.Ct. Illinois, State U.S. 776, upon 20 L.Ed.2d which which, ap- course, relies, and plied retroactively.1 Witherspoon In held that due Court process imposed voided a death sentence all jury a from were excluded objections persons expressing general or scruples against religious conscientious or capital punishment.

In view of vast amount of misinforma- a disseminated, important perhaps tion it is that it at the what be established outset Witherspoon It did not hold. did not out- punishment for penalty law the death as a imposition crime. did not hold of death under Illinois statute involved unconstitutional,2 was nor did hold penalty death constitutes cruel Dickens, Appointed on (Court Charles Eighth punishment offending unusual Worth, Davis, Fort H. Appeal), Dawson nor, by Mr. Amendment as noted Justice appel- Appeal), for (Court Appointed opinion, does the dissenting White in his lant. prohibit Legislature decision a Adcock, punishment Atty., death as specifying R. Coffey, Dist. Frank J. Crampton, crimes, penalty for certain so that and R. D. Butts W. Charles finding imposed automatically upon a Worth, B. Leon Fort Attys., Asst. Dist. invalidated the death the Court 1. footnote See Kidnapping provision Act. of the Federal opinion. States, Pope v. United U.S. See Jackson, L.Ed.2d 1317. S.Ct. 390 U.S. States United Cf. Forcella, N.J., 245 A.2d where State v. L.Ed.2d 88 S.Ct. scruples or judge religious against no discretion the infliction guilt, with of the death penalty,’ but jury. instead ask whether ‘they would automatically vote made clear majority of Court imposition punish- stating: ruling by their regard ment without evidence that “ * * * might Specifically, developed we hold at the trial of the out of death be carried case (See sentence cannot before them.’ majority opin- imposed ion, recommended if the n. 21).” by excluding veniremen chosen In scruples” Texas “conscientious simply they voiced for cause prior cause for challenge to the enact- general objections ment the Code. White v. 16 Tex. religious expressed concientious or Tex. (1856); Burrell v. de- scruples against its infliction. No Hyde 713 (1857); 16 Tex. put to constitutionally be fendant can ;446 Jury, 35 Sec. Juris.2d select- at tribunal so death hands of a the ed. adoption Prior the the Code to of 1965 capital might “Whatever else be said of Criminal Procedure accused as well the its punishment, it at clear least right capital as had in cases the State the jury cannot be imposition by hanging a juror challenge to for a had cause who squared the The Constitution. scruples infliction concerning the deck has stacked State Illinois State, penalty. Taylor death the v. this petitioner. To execute against the 609; 350, Tex.Cr.R. v. S.W.2d Jordan his him of deprive sentence would death State, 217, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 226 S.W.2d process law.” life without due State, Prewitt 145 Tex.Cr.R. S.W.2d 194. Cf. Tex. Villereal extent holding is clarified to some Further, Cr.App., prose 61 S.W. 715. the by Stewart, delivered Mr. who Justice capital permitted cutor in cases ac to he majority’s opinion, the wrote: when cept jurors they some had stated who narrow one. “The before us is a issue challenge scruples” “conscientious but oth prose- the right does not involve the ground. ers on this same Merkel v. pro- challenge to for cause those cution 75 Tex.Cr.R. Anderson 171 S.W. spective jurors their who state that reser- Tex.Cr.App. capital punishment

vations would about practice procedure prevailed 564. Such ánd impartial prevent making them in a every capital felony death was guilt. the possible decision as to defendant’s in punishment. innovations Two assertion by Nor does it involve the State’s this the Code wrought were area right of a to exclude from amend of Criminal Procedure and they give capital First, those say a case who ments thereto. the State must any death impose prior to trial days could never vote written notice even death they capital refuse that it seek the case intends to by be- imposition the case known penalty. consider its When State makes death written that it not seek the fore See footnote notice will them.” plea be penalty, may opinion. the defendant enter a majority said under court, by jury and fore waive Black, character- dissenting, Mr. Justice may case in such no circumstances holding “very ambiguous” as ized 1.14, imposed. Article Vernon’s penalty further stated (Acts Ann.C.C.P., amended “ * * * Aug. eff. Leg., ch. opinion, p. Sec. I For as read were Second, challenges for cause 1967). upon the requirement placed States new those (a) three prospective groups: into divided they asking is that cease make, Defense either the State or could they ‘conscientious jurors whether (b) only make, those (617) State could V.A.C.C.P.), and then he will be (c) only those the Defense could make. confronted with the choice of accepting a juror 35.16, Article Under may V.A.C.C.P. have been offended may premature division challenge State now challenge unnecessarily juror reason that he has conscien- using peremptor challenge. scruples regard tious to the infliction of noted, As prior earlier to the 1965 Code punishment. death as Sec. of Criminal parties Procedure both could (b) supra. (1), changes mean that These scruples” use challenge the “conscientious only in cases where the State has cause, and neither wanted the other side announced written notice will to have a “windfall” without capital punishment seek does “conscientious determining scruples juror’s were scruples” play. come into automatically that he would vote right Further attention directed to the against capital punishment regardless of challenge State for cause undoubtedly the facts. Such factor con- juror prejudice against who has a bias or growth tributed of the traditional any phase law practice in this state. punish- rely is entitled for conviction Unlike the Texas practice, statute or ment. (b) (3), Article 35.16 V.A.C.C.P. Illinois statute involved in corresponding right. The defense has a provided: (c) (2), Article 35.16 See V.A.C.C.P. “In trials for also former murder shall a cause V.A.C.C.P. 1925. challenge shall, for juror of any who It long has been the traditional being examined, state that he has practice Texas, in the before and after scruples conscientious against capital Code, effective date of the 1965 not punishment, opposed or that he is to the juror capital simply excuse a in cases who same.” scruples stated he had against conscientious death penalty interrogate the but to such jury The in at the bar was case juror further to determine if this means chosen or selected in the traditional Texas that he or the she could never vote for manner. Witherspoon, Unlike there was no penalty. death cause on challenge for sweep effort jury panel from the all ground always this has been understood objectors” rapid “conscientious in succes scruples to mean that of the sion any without effort to find out juror could never inflict the death vote scruples “whether their invariably penalty any in regardless case of the facts compel against capital punish them to vote or appeared circumstances. this the Until ment.” Except for the few members ex challenge for cause was not sustainable. by agreement, cused jury panel the was ex practice squares Such requirements with the separate amined apart required upon Witherspoon. of request by (Art. 35.17, statute V.A.C.C.P.3). Normally, prosecutor clearly the will prospective examined, Out of jurors the 126 juror’s establish disqualification the on the record reveals 424 who were excused ground challenging this before fear for after stating they scruples had conscientious juror may upon the re-qualified against punish the infliction of death as a interrogation further explanation by However, the pages ment. as we read the 827 35.18, defense the (See or court also of voir examination, the dire of 38 these practice Code, 3. As to penalty, under former see tlie death but was dis- Prospective qualified “Examination of Jurors when he stated he could never Capital Stout, teenager, Cases.” A. R. TLR for death in vote the case (1950). prejudice against and had a the law the which allowed same. He was not Buckey (No. 82) jurors R. P. Juror testified the included in mentioned. See scruples 35.16(b) (3), he did not V.A.C.C.P. in tion clearly punishment, stated jurors the action prospective court’s sustaining to im- they challenge never vote State’s could addition or could cause on any case will be the death sustained on pose appeal. 713; Burrell State, facts v. 18 Tex. conceive visualize to Sawyer them cause Tex.Cr.R. 47 S.W. which would circumstances 650; Myers feel 77 Tex.Cr.R. the death vote in sus- S.W. Vickers 92 Tex.Cr.R. justified. The action court’s was cause to 242 S.W. see also Article challenge for taining the State’s sup- V.A.C.C.P. panel these members One decision. ported by Further, say could before we ex- Trudy Wilmoth, 66) was (No. juror, court, jurors and who saw three these after interrogation further cused without answers, in its heard their error was in scru- “conscientious testified she had she appel rulings, must be observed penalty. She ples” against granted lant extra or sixteenth knew stated, however, that she previously peremptory challenge exercised. which was Lairds, for whose a husband and wife prior to the selection the twelfth indicted appellant murders Just juror (George Osborn, ap 126), No. pointed police out to bodies were whose pellant peremp was offered his seventeenth discovery of appellant at time of tory challenge rejected which he and in at bar. in the case body deceased sisted seating of twelfth for which apparent the record It is not from juror. ex- actually Mrs. Wilmoth was reason at objection cused, appellant but made no We are convinced that in the selection do time and we not understand case did at bar con- the record or briefs neutrality” not cross the “line excusing tends that court erred in respect penalty6 perceive no and we juror. might argued that the answers supported holding reversible error. Our jurors prospective of three of the Jersey the recent decision the New scruples they had stated 245, Supreme Mathis, Court in State v. punishment against death as a the (7/3/68). A.2d 20 ideally unambig- crime were less than for against they to uous as whether would vote impact Witherspoon upon of facts capital punishment the regardless of in jurors Texas the selection in of cannot or circumstances in case. We seeking cases the where State is the conclude, however, erred the court not, sharp undoubtedly will while challenge to these sustaining in the State’s much ening practice, the traditional so equivo- jurors. juror’s If the answers necessity as it practice affect will the is qualified, interrogation cal or further appellate review the preserving permissible his view- in order to ascertain certainly manner of that selection. It will 115, point. Tex.Juris.2d., Jury, Sec. court, in be advisable the for the future p. no such 168. The here made not,7 requested by party whether either has request interrogation. for further reporter the voir to have the court record that if the of long holding been this Court (see panel, jury dire examination of the had con- juror it doubtful whether the Tex.Cr.App., Evans v. the inflic- scruples day and include regard decided) scientious to to decision, 29), upon guilt Reynolds (Juror partial the issue of Mrs. Clark Jurors innocence, (Juror 90), Mr. but the felt the data court Mrs. Elmer Wilson produced (Juror 125) was insufficient to show Holt J. B. jurors the would tend to favor petitioner con- In prosecution. jurors qualified the death tended im- render an V.A.C.C.P. to 7.See Sec. unable appellate every jury record the In above, list indi- view of what have we said cating jurors chosen, ones unnecessary excused is for us to whether determine therefor, and the reasons etc. Criminal District No. 3 of Tarrant Court County, despite designation attempt and the In his next ground appel of error jurisdiction, regular a to limit its is also lant contends that Criminal District Court constitutional district court which No. 3 of Tarrant County lacked the au power impanel grand juries. has the to thority impanel the Grand Jury Clayton, See Lord v. 163 Tex. him, returned the indictment and 718 and cases there cited. S.W.2d quash his motion to the indictment should granted. been We find no We find no error merit in contention. A Section court’s of refusal to the testimony strike 1926-44, of V.A.C.S., Gwozdz, which created pathologist Dr. Feliks the said Criminal District deceased, Court No. 3 in autopsy conducted the 1965, provides as follows: the refusal of the of stipulate qualifications of

“A. Creation and Jurisdiction pathologist the deceased to the fact that Ap gunshot died a to the head. The Criminal District No. 3 wound Court pellant urges that in of his County jurisdic- Tarrant is created. Its view offer stipulate necessity tion provided there was no to show identical with that experience law for extensive and educational back the Criminal District Court County pathologist Tarrant District or for such wit the Criminal ness to exhibit to outline County Court No. of Tarrant and shall drawing describe of the human head and to concurrently.” be exercised shocking” in detail “horrible and con creating While Act the court does head, the, dition that such deceased’s impanel express authority contain inflammatory. testimony was The burden 1926-43, jury, Articles grand 1926-41and proof beyond doubt rested reasonable V.A.C.S., District creating Criminal prove the State to all elements (now County Court of Tarrant Criminal charged, including of the offense cause Leg., District Acts Court No. death. As stated this Court Stokes p. ch and the 1) Sec. Criminal 162 Tex.Cr.R. S.W.2d County Tarrant District Court No. to im expressly authorizes courts those cannot, damag by admitting “An accused Therefore, panel grand juries. case, cut ing features of the State’s 1926-44, A, supra, language Sec. of Article off above, making proof from thereof.”See quoted perceive any we fail to 451, 32 Tex.Cr.R. State, Reeves v. 116 power of said limitation State, Tex. 471; Beard v. 146 S.W.2d preventing 3 Criminal District Court No. 96, Cr.R. 171S.W.2d 869. doing the other anything County District Tarrant Criminal Courts of drawing Further, or out- use of the do, including organization of a could testimony his make pathologist line to State, grand jury. 98 Tex.Cr.R. Cf. Walker v. jury to clearer the cause of death as to 663, State, 988; v. S.W. Robinson 267 ghastly drawing bring within does such 424, are 100 Tex.Cr.R. 274 S.W. 137. We v. rule. Marion bloody clothes picture or persuaded to not that the amendment Sec State, Tex.Cr.App., 1926-44, supra, tion F of Article effective appellant’s trial, after court the gave the is #5 overruled. Ground of error necessary impanel grand juries authority to complains 1967, Appellant next

for the first time. See Acts refusing, when 3, in Leg., p. 1792, effective the trial court erred ch. Sec. appellant’s sister objected, permit August to

359 State, 223,] 221 convicted Perez v. Tex.Cr.R. never been testify that he had [153 915; State, ar- Tex. Marberry been v. previously had not S.W.2d a crime and 1107; in Cr.R. 23 Tex character S.W. Appellant admits that rested. .Jr .2d in but contends Sec. 171. itself not issue and of miti- in testimony was admissible that such inquiry as character must “The be remem- gation punishment. should reputation of the general limited be- trial commenced appellant’s bered that person community his residence in the 37.07, Article amendment to fore the 1967 Brownlee where he best known. is bifurcated V.A.C.C.P., which authorizes 255; State, v. Tex.App. v. Watson pen- capital trials in cases where State, 585, 244 156 Tex.Cr.R. S.W.2d 37.07 as alty by the sought State. 515; Tex 171.” Sec. Jr.2d application originally enacted no had pleas guilty Smith, cases where testimony of not that offer- In similar penalty and such seeking the death State is ed inadmissible when offered here was held stage stage were to be conducted one guilt cases at the or innocence State, Tex.Cr.App., proceedings. Rojas Ar- provisions v. trial bifurcated under the fol- procedure 37.07, supra, despite S.W.2d 30. Such ticle fact that the Therefore, the appellant appli- in the case at probation lowed bar. Smith had filed a 2(b), provisions testimony Sec. cation. Such would Smith supra, permitting party evi- either to offer at the have been admissible prior rec- dence of the criminal stage proceedings, defendant’s but it was not of such ord, reputation character again at the offered.

stage trial, of a bifurcated available was not appellant. to the Neither he filed had bar, regardless In the case at application probation testimony and the State, Rojas supra, judge v. if purpose. offered was not admissible conducted a trial at bifurcated request objection, or without the testi his appellant As acknowledges, mony admissible at offered would have been good character of the accused at this one penalty stage proceedings stage proved by testimony trial could question pres different have been previously charged he had not been State, Tex.Cr.App., ented.8 v. Williams Only convicted aof criminal offense. re 415 S.W.2d 917. did not occur and we Such cently Smith S.W.2d perceive no error in action. the trial court’s this Court said: Ground of error #8 is overruled. may “An accused evidence of introduce appellant In of error #9 good his character to that it im- show failing contends the trial court erred in probable charged. that he did the act charge if indi Hamman 166 Tex.Cr.R. any prior cated at during time inter to or 301; Tex.App. S.W.2d Jones rogation silent, his desire to remain Ray’s McCormick & Texas Law of interrogation ceased, should and if it Evidence, p. 22A Vol. Sec. not, any did statement thereafter made 676, pp. Criminal Law 699-700. § C.J.S. could not be considered “nor evidence obtained a law, “It as result appears to be the how- is claimed settled thereofIt ever, sign poly good the ac- refusal to character of graph may proved by testimony consent form was his indication cused not be or wish to charged remain silent. previously he has never been Reliance is had 38.22, Article V.A.C.C.P., with convicted a criminal offense. and Morales v. also be true under ital eases where 8. The same will the State seeks the death penalty. 37.07, appli- amendment to Article guilty cap- pleas cable now to State, Tex.Cr.App., p.m. During 427 S.W.2d 51. We 5:40 agreed this time he ato reaffirm what said in Morales lie detector was test and was returned his to objec- supra, any timely jail p.m. but we fail to find cell until 7:55 when he was taken charge particular tion polygraph to the court’s before examiner D. E. Wheeler. appellant basis contained in this of error. There sign poly- refused to 36.14, Nothing graph form, See Article V.A.C.C.P. consent and Officers Harrison presented for and review. The State contends left a nearby for cafeteria leav- Jones ing appellant the evidence did not raise the issue of custody in the of Wheeler. voluntariness before and court appellant Reminding right of his remain need charged not have thereon. Since the silent, began inquire Wheeler about the did charge, perhaps court so car Shortly appellant theft. thereafter told been if desirable there had been full com- deceased, Wheeler that he had shot the Ken- pliance 38.22, with supra, though, Article Eugene Jones, neth Arlington at Lake and the reasons stated no error is reversible had taken his car. He offered lead the perceived. point officers At the of- scene. Appellant’s grounds #3, 6, 7, 10 of error ficers had no knowledge murder. appel- and 11 deal with the contention Appellant p.m. was then taken at 9:10 be- confession, lant’s oral as well his writ- as fore of the Peace Matthews W. W. Justice confession, ten taken and admitted into again who him in with warned accordance contrary 15.17, 38.21, evidence to Articles 15.17, supra, and him he informed 38.22, V.A.C.C.P., and his “constitu- murder, sign was accused and had him rights.” tional agree. We cannot ap- warning the written Thereafter form. pellant lead the to the shores of appel The record officers reveals that this lant was arrested speeding de Arlington in the he Lake and the bushes where ceased’s automobile in an isolated area after body had hidden deceased who high speed by police chase at 3:50 a.m. on then fishing had been when shot. He September 23, Being give unable to directed home where the officers to his a satisfactory explanation officers as to recovered, subsequently rifle used was possession vehicle, his placed he was pointed shop he had pawn where out jail at 4:22 a.m. At appel 10:30 a.m. the rifle, in his purchased and located lant, who was years to be nineteen old the shot jail casing cell the the fatal shell day, following Corpora was taken before his after which had been hidden therein Judge tion Court gave VanMeter him September arrest. At 12:20 a.m. on the warnings required 15.17, by Article the District appellant was taken to supra, in alleged connection with the theft again he was Attorney’s office. There offense, appellant and the indicated to the rights of his in accordance warned magistrate questions he requests. had no Butts, as- supra, by Charles It is observed that his arrest until attorney, and reminded of sistant district warnings these in-custody there had been no Following such warn- right his to counsel. interrogation of appellant. Between 1 and confession. ings appellant gave a written p.m. appellant 2:40 interrogated by Ft. subsequently re- The oral confession was Worth City Detective A. I. con Weaver non-police writing signed by duced cerning the automobile During theft. this witness, existent required by the then appellant questioning op was offered the 38.22,supra. version of Article portunity to call family, his attorney any friends, appel- testify that which he did Being Appellant’s declined. un sister able lived lant, to locate the children who owner of the oldest of seven automobile in the quit to determine if school parents, had their had borrowed the with same, work failing Harris done again grade, Officers on and Jones find questioned We appellant 8th, grades. p.m. between 4:50 9th and and here control- bloody garments blood as however, he was that indicate nothing, overruled. error is ling. Ground of intelli- making way of incapable in #14 his of knowing waiver voluntary and gent, ap- appellant’s court and Both State appellant that is no evidence rights. There are to be commended pointed counsel cajoled threatened, into tricked respective quality their of the excellent in- not held appellant was “waiver.” tremendous has of same been briefs. The and lengthy there nor was communicado study over in its of Court value to this uninterrupted interrogation 2,000 record. pages this of finding a valid of against mitigate error, judgment Finding no reversible waiver. affirmed. Before in- the confessions were admitted jury, to evidence before the the court con- a separate hearing the admissi-

ducted OPINION ON APPELLANT’S bility re- and the same and voluntariness of FOR REHEARING MOTION findings writing. duced its See

38.22, supra. MORRISON, Judge. “totality circum Considering of Court does not hesitate to This stances,” re are we convinced reverse apparent where it is that the trial quirements of Texas statutes court has per excluded all Arizona,

dictates Miranda v. of of State expressing objections sons general to or 384 U.S. 16 L.Ed.2d 86 S.Ct. religious scruples State, have been met. See McCandless v. punishment infliction death as 636; Tex.Cr.App., 425 S.W.2d Charles crime as by Supreme enunciated Court 909; State, An Tex.Cr.App., 424 S.W.2d Witherspoon United States in State, ders v. Tex.Cr.App., 426 S.W.2d Illinois, supra. parte See Ex Tex.Cr.App., 421 S. Gunter v. Bryan, Tex.Cr.App., 123, and Tex.Cr.App., W.2d Torres v. Ellison Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 422 S.W.2d 741. however, day do, decided. We remain convinced of the of our soundness reject ad appellant’s claim We original disposition at case bar. court vanced without authorities admitting erred in the written into evidence brief, ap- The amicus curiae as well as of the Peace warning used form Justice pellant’s rehearing, presented and brief on by appellant. The signed Matthews and ably expects says so argued, exhibit demon admissible to Supreme Court held 15.17, su compliance strate a perfection must be achieved in the examin- pra, tending and as show waiver every ation venireman. this dras- With appellant. non-in It is that the observed we, practical lawyers tic standard as until signed criminating exhibit was not sat on the trial benches of this State accord been twice warned in qualified and have veniremen to serve supra. ance with Article Ground cases where the death been has error is overruled. #13 sought, agree. may are not inclined to It Supreme a rule Court has written Further, we find no error whereby of law no death conviction to delete from court’s refusal upheld though could ever be even to blood and references written confession doing. exactly they say they what were not dragged body deceased had been “where accept must their We them at word in of its and hidden in bushes” opinion. original re-examine our do prejudicial nature. We flammatory and relating purpose, we useful cited would serve no deem the authorities showing it, opinion see in this to review examina- photographs the introduction tion, cross-examination, or lack of cross- examination, each of the 126 veniremen Rodriguez REYNA, Pedro Appellant,

examined in this case. This was ex- done haustively by orginal opin- the author of the Texas, Appellee. The STATE of Where, here, ion. as several the venire expressed their convictions the in- No. 41471. fliction appellant’s and Appeals Court of Criminal of Texas.

counsel, evidently being satisfied veniremen’s statements or because he did Sept. 16, not want the veniremen for some rea- other Rehearing Denied Nov. son, qualify made no effort them for service, we do not that it becomes conclude duty steps of the court to take other qualify

toward attempting the veniremen. may agree-

Veniremen still excused State;

ment in this is our view that

the rule set forth in Footnote 21 in Wither-

spoon application has to veniremen whom

appellant seriously qualify tried to for serv-

ice, guideline and serves as an excellent think, however, cases. We imposing upon

should be construed as courts additional duties when it

evident that the did not accused want juror. why point-

venireman as a This is we opinion ap-

ed “The original out our

pellant request here made fur- no such interrogation.”

ther

This is not a case where the manner of by stipulation selection shown a violation of the Wither- reflects

spoon Spencer the case in standards was Beto, (5th Cir). F.2d

Remaining convinced that this cause was

properly originally, appellant’s mo- decided

tion rehearing is overruled.

CONCURRING OPINION ON

REHEARING

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

Believing appeal properly that this submission, original

decided

authority opinions Scott

Tex.Cr.App., Ellison v. Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d parte

Ex Bryan, Tex.Cr.App., S.W. day

2d I concur decided, re

overruling motion for

hearing.

Case Details

Case Name: Pittman v. State

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Jul 24, 1968

Citation: 434 S.W.2d 352

Docket Number: 41393

Court Abbreviation: Tex. Crim. App.