Massey v. State

624 S.W.2d 576, 1981 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1209
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 28, 1981
DocketNo. 60752
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 624 S.W.2d 576 (Massey 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
Massey v. State, 624 S.W.2d 576, 1981 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1209 (Tex. 1981).

Opinion

OPINION

ONION, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for false imprisonment. V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 20.02. After guilt was determined by a jury, the court assessed appellant’s punishment at nine days in county jail and a fine of $685.00.

At the outset appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.

V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 20.02, provides in part:

“(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.”

V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 20.01, provides in part:

“In this chapter:
“(1) ‘Restrain’ means to restrict a person’s movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with his liberty, by moving him from one place to another or by confining him. Restraint is ‘without consent’ if it is accomplished by:
“(A) force, intimidation, or deception; or ... . ”

V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 6.03, provides in part:

“(a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
“(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.”

See also V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 1.07(a) (18) and (19).

Omitting the formal parts, the information alleged the appellant on or about the 6th day of December, A.D. 1976 “did unlawfully intentionally and knowingly by force, intimidation and deception restrain John Alley without his consent by restricting the movements of the said John Alley ... . ”

Obviously finding no evidence to show force or deception, the court submitted only the issue of restraint by intimidation to the jury in its charge. The court also charged on the law of circumstantial evidence.

At the time of the alleged offense the appellant Massey was the administrator of the Forest Manor Nursing Home in Dallas. At such time John Alley, the complaining witness, had resided at Forest Manor for approximately three months. Robert Allen, Alley’s son,1 related Alley suffered from “sugar,” apparently meaning he suffered [578]*578from a diabetic condition. Allen stated his father needed shots and three meals a day and he couldn’t take care of him at his (Allen’s) home, and that Alley had been taken to Forest Manor.

Apparently on Friday, December 3, 1976, Allen came to Forest Manor stating he wanted to take his father home for the day. Permission was granted by the appellant. Allen took his father to the Oak Cliff Nursing Home and made arrangements to move him there. Upon their return to Forest Manor, Alley went to his room. Allen approached the appellant and informed her he intended to take his father out of Forest Manor. Allen related appellant stated, “Yeah, you can take him out if you give me six hundred and seventy-five dollars. I know you can’t raise that.” Allen asked if some kind of arrangement could be made and appellant stated, “Yeah, for six hundred and seventy-five dollars.”2

At another point Allen testified, “Yeah, she told me, said ‘Well, you can take him and pay me so much a month’ or however I get paid, I could make some kind of arrangements.” Then when questioned again he stated the appellant told him he could not make arrangements, that she wanted her money for expenses incurred.

After his conversation with the appellant, Allen returned to his father’s room and told him, “Well, she won’t let you go and wait until Monday and I see what can I do about it.” There is no showing Allen mentioned to his father that a bill was due.

On Monday, December 6, 1976, Allen went to the Oak Cliff Nursing Home, and then went downtown to “Mr. Bill’s” office, an individual who is not otherwise identified in the record. He was then referred to Nancy Tracey, an attorney employed by the Older Americans Legal Action Center. Tracey that day tape recorded a telephone conversation Allen had with the appellant in which appellant stated, “Bring me his money to pay for him being here, and you can have him.” Told that Alley was “set up in another folks’ home” appellant replied, “Well, that’s just fine and dandy. You bring me my money, and then you can move him anywhere you want to, I don’t care.”

At the conclusion of the conversation Tracey called the police. According to Allen two officers met him at Forest Manor and they talked to the appellant, who said Allen couldn’t “get” his father. The police asked Allen why he didn’t pay the bill. Thereafter, the police officers telephoned to “Mr. Bill” or Tracey or both. Tracey related she received a call from the police, and while talking to them, received a telephone call on another line from the appellant who wanted to discuss payment of Alley’s bill. Tracey stated she would discuss that with Alley’s family and inquired if appellant would release Alley. Appellant stated she didn’t want to until she got her money, but when asked if she would release him, even if she didn’t want to, appellant replied, “What choice do I have?” Tracey told appellant she didn’t believe the appellant had a choice. Appellant then stated she would release Alley and sue him.

Allen testified that the police officers went with him to his father’s room, and that he took his father and his belongings to the Oak Cliff Nursing Home.

John Alley, the complaining witness, was apparently difficult for the jury to understand. A nurse’s aide at the Oak Cliff Nursing Home was asked to interpret his answers. Nevertheless, much of his testimony was in answer to leading questions or unresponsive to the interrogation, or he answered questions with questions.

Alley testified he resided at the Oak Cliff Nursing Home, and that previously he had resided for three months at the Forest Man- or Nursing Home. He liked Oak Cliff better than Forest Manor, and both homes better than living at his son’s house. He related that while at Forest Manor on occasion he went to a nearby grocery store with a nurse and would get a hamburger and a soda water. In expressing dissatisfaction with Forest Manor and his desire to leave, the record reflects on direct examination:

[579]*579“Q Now, Mr. Alley, you told the Court that you wanted to leave Forest Manor Nursing Home.
“A (By the interpreter) Yes, I found out how she treated other people.
“Q Did you think that might happen to you?
“A (By the interpreter) Uh-huh.”

Alley related that he had seen somebody outside of the nursing home being “drug” back to the nursing home. Surrounding circumstances were not related nor was there any showing that the appellant was involved.

When asked if he ever tried to leave the home before the son took him away, he stated, “I was going to the store one day and she said ‘Don’t go out that door.’ ”

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

Related

Wofford v. Wofford
991 S.W.2d 194 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
624 S.W.2d 576, 1981 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/massey-v-state-texcrimapp-1981.