Greer v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Greer v. State

468 S.W.2d 811, 1971 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1692

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 9, 1971

DocketNo. 43921

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 468 S.W.2d 811 (Greer 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

Greer v. State, 468 S.W.2d 811, 1971 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1692 (Tex. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is burglary; with a prior conviction for an offense of the same nature alleged for enhancement; the punishment, twelve (12) years.

Appellant filed a motion in limine asking that the State be ordered not to make proof of other offenses which occurred near the time of the offense charged. The Court held the motion in abeyance until the facts were developed. The State made no mention of any other offense until after the appellant testified that he had not burglarized the building in which he was apprehended by the arresting officer. On cross-examination he was asked if he had not broken into three other places that same night. No objections were interposed to such questions. Appellant answered in the negative and stated that the only place that he and his companion had gone on that night was to a liquor store. The State was then permitted to prove that the owner of another place of business, which had been broken into the same night, recovered his missing property from the automobile in which the appellant admitted riding that night.

Without relying upon appellant’s failure to object, we conclude that since the appellant testified as he did, evidence of other burglaries became admissible to show intent under the rule announced in Torres v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 106, 323 S.W.2d 952 and the cases there cited.

[812]*812Appellant’s next grounds of error relate to the court’s charge. We find no objections to the charge; therefore, nothing is presented for review. Johnson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 423 S.W.2d 318.

We find no objection to the evidence concerning the search of the automobile in question and, therefore, there is nothing before us for review. Boykin v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 652, 362 S.W.2d 328.

Finding the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction and no reversible error appearing, 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 burglary; with a prior conviction for an offense of the same nature alleged for enhancement; the punishment, twelve (12) years.

Appellant filed a motion in limine asking that the State be ordered not to make proof of other offenses which occurred near the time of the offense charged. The Court held the motion in abeyance until the facts were developed. The State made no mention of any other offense until after the appellant testified that he had not burglarized the building in which he was apprehended by the arresting officer. On cross-examination he was asked if he had not broken into three other places that same night. No objections were interposed to such questions. Appellant answered in the negative and stated that the only place that he and his companion had gone on that night was to a liquor store. The State was then permitted to prove that the owner of another place of business, which had been broken into the same night, recovered his missing property from the automobile in which the appellant admitted riding that night.

Without relying upon appellant’s failure to object, we conclude that since the appellant testified as he did, evidence of other burglaries became admissible to show intent under the rule announced in Torres v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 106, 323 S.W.2d 952 and the cases there cited.

[812]*812Appellant’s next grounds of error relate to the court’s charge. We find no objections to the charge; therefore, nothing is presented for review. Johnson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 423 S.W.2d 318.

We find no objection to the evidence concerning the search of the automobile in question and, therefore, there is nothing before us for review. Boykin v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 652, 362 S.W.2d 328.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 S.W.2d 811, 1971 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greer-v-state-texcrimapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack