Casey v. State

456 S.W.2d 945
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 8, 1970
DocketNo. 42969
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 456 S.W.2d 945 (Casey 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
Casey v. State, 456 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. 1970).

Opinion

OPINION

BELCHER, Judge.

The offense is the unlawful possession of an alcoholic beverage for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $350.00. '

The sole ground urged for reversal is the failure of the trial court to grant a mistrial due to the following reply to a state’s question during the testimony of the witness Crowder:

“Q What was the occasion for your going down there that night ?
“A We had information that they were selling alcoholic beverages.
“Mr. Quinn: I am going to object.
“The Court: Now, we sustain the objection.
“Mr. Quinn: Now, we respectfully request the court to move for a mistrial. The instructions will not cure the harm that has been done.
“The Court: I will overrule the objection. I instruct the jury at this time to disregard for all purposes the last statement of this witness.
“Mr. Quinn: We request—
“The Court: Now, Counsel, you be careful in framing the questions.
“Mr. Quinn: Now, Your Honor, we request that the Court grant a mistrial because the instructions will not cure the harm.
“The Court: I will overrule the motion for a mistrial.
“Mr. Quinn: Note our exception.”

Although the statement made by the witness Crowder was hearsay, it did not mention the name of the appellant. In view of the prompt instruction for the jury to disregard it, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial. The appellant’s ground of error is overruled. Harris v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 310; Wheeler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 413 S.W.2d 705; White v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 444 S.W.2d 921.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Cazares v. State
488 S.W.2d 110 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Hopkins v. State
480 S.W.2d 212 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
456 S.W.2d 945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casey-v-state-texcrimapp-1970.