Opinion
No. 17961.
Delivered February 26, 1936.
Robbery — Evidence.
Where, in prosecution for robbery, witness testified in answer to a question by State's attorney, "Well, a robbery was perpetrated," and objection to such answer on ground that statement was a conclusion was overruled, held admission of such evidence harmless, where it was uncontroverted that two men committed the robbery, and person robbed positively identified defendant as one of the men who participated in the robbery, and witness did not undertake to testify that defendant perpetrated the robbery.
Appeal from the District Court of Runnels County. Tried below before the Hon. O. L. Parish, Judge.
Appeal from conviction for robbery; penalty, confinement in the penitentiary for ten years.
Affirmed.
The opinion states the case.
Petty Sessions, of Ballinger, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
The offense is robbery; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for ten years.
The State's testimony was to the effect that appellant and another man exhibited pistols and took from the possession of Mrs. J. W. Gosnell, sixty-three dollars in money. Mrs. Gosnell was acquainted with appellant. She positively identified him as one of the men who participated in the robbery. Other witnesses testified to the effect that the robbery was perpetrated. Appellant did not testify and introduced no witnesses.
In reply to a question by counsel for the State, one of the witnesses said: "Well, a robbery was perpetrated," Appellant's objection on the ground that the statement of the witness was a conclusion was overruled. It was uncontroverted that two men robbed Mrs. Gosnell. The witness who made the statement we have quoted did not undertake to testify that appellant perpetrated the robbery. However, Mrs. Gosnell positively identified appellant. Under the circumstances, if it should be conceded that appellant's objection should have been sustained, the matter presents harmless 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.