Gillon v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Gillon v. State

492 S.W.2d 948, 1973 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2472

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 18, 1973

Docket46018

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 492 S.W.2d 948 (Gillon 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

Gillon v. State, 492 S.W.2d 948, 1973 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2472 (Tex. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, fifty (50) years.

Five of appellant’s grounds of error relate to extraneous offenses.

In his first two grounds of error appellant contends that the admission of evidence of two extraneous offenses was error.

On direct examination the complaining witness identified appellant as the man who hit him over the head during the course of the robbery in question. On cross-examination the complaining witness was successfully impeached by showing that he had identified someone other than appellant, at the time he testified before the *949 grand jury, as being the person 'who struck him over the head during the robbery. This being so, the court was not in error in admitting proof of other robberies such as those introduced here which occurred in the same locality within two weeks after the robbery charged in the indictment and which were similarly executed against business establishments by at least two black males in addition to appellant. Appellant was identified as one of the individuals participating in each of those robberies by eyewitnesses present at those offenses.

Recent decisions of this Court appear to be uniform in holding where the injured party is impeached in a material detail of his testimony, then extraneous offenses are admissible on that point. See Franklin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 488 S.W.2d 826; Albrecht v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 97; Rogers v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 708; Caldwell v. State, 477 S.W.2d 877.

The next three grounds of error, presented without citation of authority, complain of the court’s charge regarding extraneous offenses. The court’s charge as given is that which was approved by this Court in Purvis v. State, Tex.Cr.R., 63 S.W.2d 1030. See also Owens v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 324, and Willson’s Texas Criminal Forms, Section 3601. We find no error in the court’s failure to charge as requested.

Appellant’s last four grounds of error relate to the failure of the court to charge at the punishment stage of the trial that the jury could not consider the extraneous offenses developed at the guilt or innocence phase in determining the punishment assessed. Appellant cites no authority which supports his position and we have concluded that the charge, given at the punishment phase of the trial wherein he incorporates by reference the charge given at the guilt or innocence phase of the trial including the limiting instruction as to extraneous offenses, is sufficient and fully protected appellant’s rights.

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 robbery; the punishment, fifty (50) years.

Five of appellant’s grounds of error relate to extraneous offenses.

In his first two grounds of error appellant contends that the admission of evidence of two extraneous offenses was error.

On direct examination the complaining witness identified appellant as the man who hit him over the head during the course of the robbery in question. On cross-examination the complaining witness was successfully impeached by showing that he had identified someone other than appellant, at the time he testified before the *949 grand jury, as being the person 'who struck him over the head during the robbery. This being so, the court was not in error in admitting proof of other robberies such as those introduced here which occurred in the same locality within two weeks after the robbery charged in the indictment and which were similarly executed against business establishments by at least two black males in addition to appellant. Appellant was identified as one of the individuals participating in each of those robberies by eyewitnesses present at those offenses.

Recent decisions of this Court appear to be uniform in holding where the injured party is impeached in a material detail of his testimony, then extraneous offenses are admissible on that point. See Franklin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 488 S.W.2d 826; Albrecht v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 97; Rogers v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 708; Caldwell v. State, 477 S.W.2d 877.

The next three grounds of error, presented without citation of authority, complain of the court’s charge regarding extraneous offenses. The court’s charge as given is that which was approved by this Court in Purvis v. State, Tex.Cr.R., 63 S.W.2d 1030. See also Owens v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 324, and Willson’s Texas Criminal Forms, Section 3601. We find no error in the court’s failure to charge as requested.

Appellant’s last four grounds of error relate to the failure of the court to charge at the punishment stage of the trial that the jury could not consider the extraneous offenses developed at the guilt or innocence phase in determining the punishment assessed. Appellant cites no authority which supports his position and we have concluded that the charge, given at the punishment phase of the trial wherein he incorporates by reference the charge given at the guilt or innocence phase of the trial including the limiting instruction as to extraneous offenses, is sufficient and fully protected appellant’s rights.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

492 S.W.2d 948, 1973 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gillon-v-state-texcrimapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack