Derouselle v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Derouselle v. State

462 S.W.2d 31, 1971 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1802

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 20, 1971

DocketNo. 43379

StatusPublished

This text of 462 S.W.2d 31 (Derouselle 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

Derouselle v. State, 462 S.W.2d 31, 1971 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1802 (Tex. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, life.

The sole question presented for review is that the Rule as to witnesses, set forth in Art. 36.06, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. was violated during the trial of this cause.

State’s witness Helen Hoffman testified concerning the shooting. On cross-examination, she gave practically the same testimony. At the conclusion of this cross-examination, the following appears:

“Q. Did you talk to your husband last night about what he testified to in this trial yesterday?

“A. Yes, sir.

“Q. Did he tell you what he testified to?

“A. Yes, sir. He did.

“Q. Did you talk to your daughter, Marie?

“A. Yes, sir.

“Q. Did you talk to her about what she testified to?

“A. Yes.”

(Counsel for appellant) : “Pass the witness.”

There was no motion to instruct the jury to disregard her testimony nor was any relief of any character requested of the court. We have been cited no authority and are aware of none which would require a reversal of this conviction.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, life.

The sole question presented for review is that the Rule as to witnesses, set forth in Art. 36.06, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. was violated during the trial of this cause.

State’s witness Helen Hoffman testified concerning the shooting. On cross-examination, she gave practically the same testimony. At the conclusion of this cross-examination, the following appears:

“Q. Did you talk to your husband last night about what he testified to in this trial yesterday?

“A. Yes, sir.

“Q. Did he tell you what he testified to?

“A. Yes, sir. He did.

“Q. Did you talk to your daughter, Marie?

“A. Yes, sir.

“Q. Did you talk to her about what she testified to?

“A. Yes.”

(Counsel for appellant) : “Pass the witness.”

There was no motion to instruct the jury to disregard her testimony nor was any relief of any character requested of the court. We have been cited no authority and are aware of none which would require a reversal of this conviction.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 S.W.2d 31, 1971 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/derouselle-v-state-texcrimapp-1971.