Alcorta v. State

294 S.W.2d 112, 1956 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1682

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 30, 1956
• Docket: 28080
• Status: Published

Opinions

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for murder; the punishment, death.

Appellant admittedly killed his wife by stabbing and cutting her with a knife.

At the time of the homicide the deceased was seated in an automobile in front of her house, and was in company with one Nati-vidad Castilleja, when appellant appeared with knife in hand and began to cut and stab her. He continued his assault though Castilleja started the car and attempted to throw him off, then kicked and threw rocks at him until appellant ran Castilleja away with his knife.

Appellant then took charge of Castilleja’s car and drove away with the deceased, finally dragging her body from the car and depositing it in a creek in Atascosa County.

Thereafter he abandoned the car in that County and, after traveling to Laredo and to the Rio Grande Valley, returned several days later to San Antonio where he obtained and cashed his last pay check.

He was apprehended the following day as he was traveling north from San Antonio toward Boerne.

Appellant and the deceased were the parents of three children. They had been separated for several months.

Appellant gave as his reason for killing his wife the fact that, he was drunk, saw his wife kissing Natividad, and knew she had been going with other men and was not taking .proper care of the children. , He testified to no lawful1 excuse or justification for the.killing, but gave the reasons indicated as mitigating circumstances.

The State’s ev-id.ence shows that - appellant had been placed under peace bond on complaint of the deceased, and that earlier on the-day of the homicide had made threats to kill her.

There is but one bill of exception, which is claimed to show ground for reversal. It is addressed to the introduction in evidence of “Five (5) large photographs of the deceased wife of the defendant, such photographs taken in the nude and showing thirty two (32) stab wounds on the body of deceased.”

The bill of exception shows that such photographs were admitted over the objection that they were inflammatory and prejudicial and had no bearing on the case.

The trial court’s qualification to the bill of exception certifies, however, that: “said pictures were allowed to be introduced as bearing on the question of malice in the case and further as bearing on the question of .the denial of the defendant that the wounds were on the body of the deceased in the number and as represented by the medical officer and as represented by the testimony of the officer witnesses in the case making a material fact issue on a material issue in the case, * *

The record fully sustains the court’s qualification. On the-State’s case in chief there was testimony to the effect "that 32 ■cuts and stab wounds and bruises were found on the body.

Dr. David T. McMahon, Jr., Assistant Bexar- County Health Officer, who made the autopsy after the .body was .embalmed, testified that there were - 25 or 30 sewed lacerations over the face, neck, chest, thighs and legs, varying from one-half to four inches in length; lacerations over vital structures including two in the neck' and several in the chest and over "the heart and lungs, one of which punctured the heart and others the kings, and-one" in the neck severed the left external jugular vein.

He further testified “the skull was examined completely and minutely externally and there were no wounds on the skull, except those before mentioned on the face.”

Dr. McMahon expressed the opinion that death was from multiple causes, and though there were enough wounds in the vital structures that would have killed her, there were so many lacerations that had no vital structures been punctured she would have died anyway.

Appellant took the stand in his own behalf and, though admitting the stabbing and killing of his wife, questioned the accuracy of the testimony that had been offered by the State. ■ ■

On direct examination he testified “I am not trying to accuse this guy (Natividad Castilleja) of trying, to kill my wife or anything, but I know he hit her with a rock on her head. The rock was the size of a cantaloupe and she must have'had some injury to her head * * * I ducked the rock and I saw that rock hit her and she fell forward, and then she 'went back; that’s why her legs were hanging out’ of the door when I took out in the car and the door was open.” (Emphasis supplied.)

. On cross-examination appellant testified: “How could I stabbed my wife 32 times with the car going full speed and zig-zag-ging and being drunk and all? * . * * I didn’t say I stabbed her 32 times; that’s what you got here. *\ * •*. I did stab her 9 times or so, maybe 15, but not 32; that is exaggerated. You can’t stab a woman sitting in a car running zig-zag and holding yourself on the running board .and with a knife stab her 32 times from here (indicating) to her head.”

Also on cross-examination appellant testified that the blood on his pants “came from where the rock hit my wife in the head because her head was laying up here on the side (indicating).”

Upon rebuttal the photographs complained of were offered and admitted. They show the nude body of the deceased after it had been prepared for burial, and clearly illustrate the correctness of the testimony of the State’s witnesses as to the knife wounds. The photographs also show the absence of a wound on the head such as would probably have resulted had she been struck by the large rock.

Authorities cited in the brief of both the State and the appellant are to the effect that photographs which, in the light of the whole case, aid the jury in arriving at the truth of the matter, serve to illustrate some point or solve some question, or shed light upon matters connected with the proper solution of the case are admissible, and it is only where the photographs serve no legitimate purpose and are calculated to seriously inflame the minds of the jurors and tend to cause them to return a more onerous verdict than the facts call for or justify are such photographs excluded. Gibson v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 582, 223 S.W.2d 625; Mouton v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 450, 235 S.W.2d 645; Cantrell v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 329, 242 S.W.2d 387; Griffin v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 27, 198 S.W.2d 587; Ray v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 12, 266 S.W.2d 124.

Under the rule stated and the evidence before him, the trial court did not err in admitting the photographs, and the bill of exception as qualified shows no error.

The judgment is affirmed.