Culvahouse v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Culvahouse v. State

440 S.W.2d 637, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 988

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 30, 1969

Docket42035

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 440 S.W.2d 637 (Culvahouse 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

Culvahouse v. State, 440 S.W.2d 637, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 988 (Tex. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

The conviction is for robbery with firearms; the punishment, 100 years.

The record reflects that appellant, armed with a pistol, demanded and received money from Irene Bonds, the operator of a liquor store in Odessa, and then shot her in the head two times. She recovered and testified at the trial. The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged.

One ground of error is presented. Appellant complains that he was not permitted to prove at the penalty stage of the trial that he had worked as a pipe fitter in the construction business for a year and earned some $5000.00, and if the jury did not assess the death penalty he would like to finish his education. Appellant contends that this was proof of his general reputation and his character as authorized under Art. 37.07 Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. Appellant testified during the guilt stage of the trial that he had done mostly construction work; that he had worked at Big Spring and for Permian Pipe as a pipe fitter until two or three weeks before April 24, the date of the robbery. He testified that he had received an income tax refund in the amount of $278.00. The only testimony that the jury did not have before it was the total amount of $5000.00 that he had earned.

Appellant cites Allaben v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 418 S.W.2d 517, where this court held that the trial court should have admitted, but it was not reversible error to exclude, defendant’s testimony that he received psychiatric care and treatment since the date of the offense. Banda v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 424 S.W.2d 938, and Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 414 S.W.2d 659, are relied upon by appellant. In those cases evidence of general reputation was properly introduced against the defendants.

The offered testimony that he had earned $5000.00 would not be evidence of general reputation. No reversible error is shown.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

The conviction is for robbery with firearms; the punishment, 100 years.

The record reflects that appellant, armed with a pistol, demanded and received money from Irene Bonds, the operator of a liquor store in Odessa, and then shot her in the head two times. She recovered and testified at the trial. The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged.

One ground of error is presented. Appellant complains that he was not permitted to prove at the penalty stage of the trial that he had worked as a pipe fitter in the construction business for a year and earned some $5000.00, and if the jury did not assess the death penalty he would like to finish his education. Appellant contends that this was proof of his general reputation and his character as authorized under Art. 37.07 Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. Appellant testified during the guilt stage of the trial that he had done mostly construction work; that he had worked at Big Spring and for Permian Pipe as a pipe fitter until two or three weeks before April 24, the date of the robbery. He testified that he had received an income tax refund in the amount of $278.00. The only testimony that the jury did not have before it was the total amount of $5000.00 that he had earned.

Appellant cites Allaben v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 418 S.W.2d 517, where this court held that the trial court should have admitted, but it was not reversible error to exclude, defendant’s testimony that he received psychiatric care and treatment since the date of the offense. Banda v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 424 S.W.2d 938, and Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 414 S.W.2d 659, are relied upon by appellant. In those cases evidence of general reputation was properly introduced against the defendants.

The offered testimony that he had earned $5000.00 would not be evidence of general reputation. No reversible error is shown.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

440 S.W.2d 637, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/culvahouse-v-state-texcrimapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack