Charles Everett WINTTERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 60418.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, Panel No. 2.
May 13, 1981.
Rehearing Denied June 10, 1981.
197
“Q. Did the driver of the car do anything or make a motion?
“A. Looked and smiled.
“Q. Then what happened?
“A. She drove on north on Dickason and turned onto the parking lot in front of the Seven Eleven store, forty-two hundred block of Dickason.
“Q. Did you follow her?
“A. Yes, ma‘am.
“Q. What did you do?
“A. Pulled up beside her on the same parking lot facing the same direction.
“Q. Which side of the car were you on?
“A. Right side of her car.
“Q. Then what happened?
“A. She talked out the window to us and asked what we were looking for.
“Q. Did you reply?
“A. I told her we were looking for some fun, and she asked what kind we were looking for, and I told her I wanted a head job and some pussy, and she said, ‘Well, you found your fun.’
“Q. She said—and what did she say?
“A. She said, ‘Well, you‘ve found your fun.’ And she asked, ‘How much are you willing to spend?’ And I told her—I conversed with Officer Stone and told her I had twenty or twenty-five dollars and Stone had fifteen dollars, and she said that‘s not enough. And I asked her how much it would take and she said, ‘Well, I can‘t tell you price because you might be the police.’
“Q. Then what happened?
“A. She asked again, ‘How much are you willing to spend?’
“Q. Did you ever give her a price at that time?
“A. No.
“Q. Then what happened?
“A. I told her I had more money than that but I didn‘t want to get ripped off.
“Q. What was her response to that?
“A. She still haggled over the price and said, ‘I can‘t name the price because you might be the police.’ And she asked me—she made a comment about I looked like a policeman and asked me where I was from and I told her I was from San Antonio, and she asked to see something with a San Antonio address, and at that time I got out of the car and walked around to the driver‘s side of her car and showed her a San Antonio driver‘s license, and we talked a little more about the price and then a few minutes later I reached in and got the ignition keys from her car and placed her under arrest.”
Appellant argues that the evidence shows that it was the testifying officer, and not appellant, who made the offer. Although the record indicates the initial offer was made by the complainant, it also shows protracted “negotiations,” in which implied offers were made by both appellant and the complainant. We find the evidence sufficient and overrule the ground of error.
The judgment is affirmed.