Bernard v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Bernard v. State

354 S.W.2d 157, 172 Tex. Crim. 52, 1962 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 872

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 3, 1962

Docket34065

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 354 S.W.2d 157 (Bernard v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bernard v. State, 354 S.W.2d 157, 172 Tex. Crim. 52, 1962 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 872 (Tex. 1962).

Pincite

Opinions

BELCHER, Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully carrying a pistol; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The testimony of Officer Seale, of the city of Houston, shows that in response to a radio dispatch about 6:30 A.M., regarding a suspicious appearing parked automobile, he found the appellant seated in the automobile on a public street; and that the appellant told him that he was watching a nearby house in an effort to see a man from whom he had purchased a truck, and that “he was out there to get his truck one way or another”. The officer further testified that he found a loaded revolver-type pistol, with one spent shell, under the front seat and a shotgun in the back seat of the car in which the appellant was seated. He took possession of the pistol and identified it at the trial as the same one removed from appellant’s car. Officer Wright’s testimony substantially corroborates that of Officer Seale.

Testifying in his own behalf, the appellant admitted having the pistol and the shotgun in his car. He stated that he had just come from his place of business which he had been watching because it had been burglarized eleven times in the past four years, and that he intended to use the guns for protection if he caught a burglar in his place. On cross-examination, when appellant was asked if he had any other explanation for having the guns in his car, he replied: “I just happened to have the firearms, sir.”

The appellant strenuously insists that the search of his automobile by Officer Seale was illegal, and that proof of the result of the search was therefore not admissible in evidence.

Appellant’s failure to object at the time the pistol was introduced in evidence waived any complaint of the search. Williams [54]*54v. State, 166 Texas Cr. Rep. 617, 317 S.W. 2d 358; Williams v. State, 168 Texas Cr. Rep. 643, 331 S.W. 2d 214.

The record contains no formal bills of exception or objection to the court’s charge.

The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction, and no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BELCHER, Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully carrying a pistol; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The testimony of Officer Seale, of the city of Houston, shows that in response to a radio dispatch about 6:30 A.M., regarding a suspicious appearing parked automobile, he found the appellant seated in the automobile on a public street; and that the appellant told him that he was watching a nearby house in an effort to see a man from whom he had purchased a truck, and that “he was out there to get his truck one way or another”. The officer further testified that he found a loaded revolver-type pistol, with one spent shell, under the front seat and a shotgun in the back seat of the car in which the appellant was seated. He took possession of the pistol and identified it at the trial as the same one removed from appellant’s car. Officer Wright’s testimony substantially corroborates that of Officer Seale.

Testifying in his own behalf, the appellant admitted having the pistol and the shotgun in his car. He stated that he had just come from his place of business which he had been watching because it had been burglarized eleven times in the past four years, and that he intended to use the guns for protection if he caught a burglar in his place. On cross-examination, when appellant was asked if he had any other explanation for having the guns in his car, he replied: “I just happened to have the firearms, sir.”

The appellant strenuously insists that the search of his automobile by Officer Seale was illegal, and that proof of the result of the search was therefore not admissible in evidence.

Appellant’s failure to object at the time the pistol was introduced in evidence waived any complaint of the search. Williams [54]*54v. State, 166 Texas Cr. Rep. 617, 317 S.W. 2d 358; Williams v. State, 168 Texas Cr. Rep. 643, 331 S.W. 2d 214.

The record contains no formal bills of exception or objection to the court’s charge.

The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction, and no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 S.W.2d 157, 172 Tex. Crim. 52, 1962 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernard-v-state-texcrimapp-1962.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack