From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Culvahouse v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Apr 30, 1969
440 S.W.2d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969)

Opinion

No. 42035.

April 30, 1969.

Appeal from the 161st Judicial District Court, Ector County, George M. Kelton, J.

Alexander Barber, Odessa, for appellant.

Jack Tidwell, Dist. Atty., Odessa, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.


OPINION


The conviction is for robbery with firearms; the punishment, 100 years.

The record reflects that appellant, armed with a pistol, demanded and received money from Irene Bonds, the operator of a liquor store in Odessa, and then shot her in the head two times. She recovered and testified at the trial. The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged.

One ground of error is presented. Appellant complains that he was not permitted to prove at the penalty stage of the trial that he had worked as a pipe fitter in the construction business for a year and earned some $5000.00, and if the jury did not assess the death penalty he would like to finish his education. Appellant contends that this was proof of his general reputation and his character as authorized under Art. 37.07 Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. Appellant testified during the guilt stage of the trial that he had done mostly construction work; that he had worked at Big Spring and for Permian Pipe as a pipe fitter until two or three weeks before April 24, the date of the robbery. He testified that he had received an income tax refund in the amount of $278.00. The only testimony that the jury did not have before it was the total amount of $5000.00 that he had earned.

Appellant cites Allaben v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 418 S.W.2d 517, where this court held that the trial court should have admitted, but it was not reversible error to exclude, defendant's testimony that he received psychiatric care and treatment since the date of the offense. Banda v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 424 S.W.2d 938, and Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 414 S.W.2d 659, are relied upon by appellant. In those cases evidence of general reputation was properly introduced against the defendants.

The offered testimony that he had earned $5000.00 would not be evidence of general reputation. No reversible error is shown.

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Culvahouse v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Apr 30, 1969
440 S.W.2d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969)
Case details for

Culvahouse v. State

Case Details

Full title:Darrell CULVAHOUSE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Apr 30, 1969

Citations

440 S.W.2d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969)

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

See also Article 37.07, supra, as amended 1967. Even if it can be argued that such testimony was admissible…

Miller v. State

The court did not err in its action. The appellant should have, however, been permitted to testify as to her…