Pacheco v. State

81 S.W.2d 690, 128 Tex. Crim. 473, 1935 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 240
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 13, 1935
DocketNo. 17334.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 S.W.2d 690 (Pacheco 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
Pacheco v. State, 81 S.W.2d 690, 128 Tex. Crim. 473, 1935 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 240 (Tex. 1935).

Opinions

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is burglary of a private residence; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

We are unable to agree with appellant’s contention that the evidence is insufficient. William Charles Porter, the owner and occupant of the burglarized residence, testified, in substance, as follows: “On the night of November 18, 1933, he locked the doors and windows of his house. About 4:30 a. m. appellant entered his room and awakened him by feeling of his side. He attacked appellant and they engaged in a scuffle. Appellant said: “I will kill you.” Disengaging himself, appellant left the house through a window. After appellant left the witness found that his watch was gone.

Appellant was arrested several blocks away from the burglarized house at 5 a. m. on the date of the burglary. The arresting officers found no watch or other property of Mr. Porter in his possession.

Testifying in his own behalf, appellant denied that he entered Mr. Porter’s residence. His affirmative defense of alibi was supported by the testimony of other witnesses.

Several bills of exception are brought forward in which appellant complains of the action of the trial court in declining to permit him to question jurors on their voir dire examination concerning any prejudice they might entertain toward Mexicans. The court qualified said bills of exception, without objection on the part of appellant. The qualifications show that *475 appellant’s right to interrogate the juriors was not restricted and that the court permitted appellant to interrogate the jurors individually. As qualified, the bills fail to reflect error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

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

Related

Gardner v. State
263 S.W.2d 560 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 S.W.2d 690, 128 Tex. Crim. 473, 1935 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacheco-v-state-texcrimapp-1935.