ND . 06-15-DDD56-CR 

### RECEIVED IN The Court of Appeals Sixth District 

### MAY 1 8 2015 COLLINS Pro-Se

V. 

# Texarkana, Texas * 

# DebraAutrey, Clerk STATE DF TEXAS 

## FILED IN 

# TheCourtofAp'peate 

# § IN THE 6TM DISTRICT CDU R^DiStH<* 

# f «AY 182015 § OF APPEAL5 T 

# § Texarkana, Texas 

# § texarkanna, Texas DebraK. Autrey, Clerk

MOTION TD ADD 5TATEMENT OF DEFENDANT
TO CURRENTLY FILED APPEAL



### TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF CDURT;


### Comes Now ,Defendant Pro-5e ,(Collins) who humbly requests
that in review of above styled and numbered Appeal NO. 06-15-00056
CR, that a Statement from Defendant (Collins) be considered along
uith currently filed Brief.



### Brief was mailed nut on April 16, 2015 by hand delivery to
mailroom personnel at C.T. Terrell Unit after sufficient U.S.
Postage was insured. Brief was dated April 17, 2015.

Pro-Se Defendant (Collins) would ask this Court to consider
Copy of Bill of Cast in Cause NO. 5629-C as additional' evidence

to above mentioned voidable conviction.



### I, Billy Max Collins, Applicant would accert the simple

fact that Total Fine and Courtroom Costs could not have been 

### paid through three days in jail, as stated on Criminal Dockett

Sheet.



### In closing of Statement, I would also accert notice to 

## signature of Tracy Smith, Deputy to Debbie Shirley, Hopkins

1

### County Clerk, ha vingii bden duly signed and authenticated. Alleged


### Waivers and File Stamps of Mary Attesley are NOT signed by anyone of proper authority.

This amendment of evidence to be incorporated with Applicant's 

## Brief as EXHIBIT F_

IN GOD I TRUST,



### Billy Max Collins #1BB4B<f9 1300 F.M. 655 

### Rosharon, TX 775B3

# j^k^t: ^

THE STATE OF TEXAS

VS



### BILLY MAX COLLINS BILL OF COST

NO. 5629-C



### IN THE COUNTY COURT

OF 

## HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS

TO OFFICERS OF COURT, DR.
FINE • $500.00 

## COURT COSTS $127.50
TOTALFINE & COURT COSTS

- PAID TROUGH JAIL TIME $627.50 

## TRANSCRIPT $69.00 

# TRANSCRIPT (COPY-IFDESIRED) $34.50
TOTAL COURT COSTS FORTRANSCRIPT & COPY $103.50

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

### IN THE COUNTY COURT OF HOPKINS COUNTY: COUNTY CLERK OF 

# HOPKINS COUNTY, doherebycertifythe aboveto be atrue andcorrectcopyof the original bill ofcost, nowon file in my office. 

# WITNESS MYHANDANDTHESEALof saidCourtaffixedattheofficeintheCityof 

# SulphurSprings,Texasthis l/^ dayof (ll/M D\0\6 •

DEBBIE SHIRLEY, COUNTY CLERK HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS

BY 

### DEPUTY 

## TrkcV Smith

# 22 C. J:iL_

,gratiniv^f| in favor ofthe liberty ofdefendant. '-rffirr iliaT' tTTe'exercise ot"'what would be| an'_ 

# •jnnifniteti. uncertain, aridarbitraryjudiciafdiscre-_ Lion.jU

___ ~ i 

# "'"''Tne'Irialjudge mustgive counsel afuH_opj2or-... tunity"Tone heard and he ""must give careful 

# cb'nsiHeration to alternatives to a mistrial^ TherTTs authority that manifest necessity for 

# decfaring^ mistrialcannotexisTTfThe trialcourt" has~an""aIEernative to declaring a mistrial which"" 

# protects thej*ights ot both" d'efendanfTand the smt.fl."*"~Tfoweyer, there is also authority"that manifest neeessfty for amistrial can existalongsidiTless"drastic allernatives, solong asiherec- (Tfinnscloses that tnetriaTcourtconsideredalter

# TJa^iv^T'before declarmg_Ji_.mistrial^ In any' event, the court has the duty to obtain enough information so that it is clear that a mistrial is actually necessary." 

## Retrial for lesser offense.

When a trial on a higher charge ends in a 

## mistrial so that defendant can be retried on thi 

# highercharge, it is notfundamentally unfair for the state to charge and try him for a much lesser offense; -4 this is true whether the lesser offense is or is not a lesser included offense.*5 

## § 231. Discharge of Jury without Verdict A (riul court may, in ihc exercise of its sound discretion, dbcharge 11 jury without the consent of accused when there

19, Me.—State v. Flick. 495 A.2d 339. 20. Maw.—Commonwealth v. Steward, 483 N.E.2d 1091, 396 Mass.

7b. N.Y.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77. 67 N.Y.2d 383. 502

N.Y.S.2cl l'"2. 21. Ml ••S.UU r'riel. 5Ui A.2d oil. 22. U.S.—Abdi v.Slule of Georgia. C.A.Ga.. 744F.2d 1500,rehearing

denied 749 F 2d 733, certiorari denied 105 S.Cl. 1871,471 U.S. 1006, 85 L.Ed.2d 164. 23. N.Y.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77. 67 N.Y.2d 38J, 502

N.Y.S.2il 972. 24. S.C.—Stale v. Mills. 314 S.E.Id 324. 28 1 S.C. 60. oerlinrart denied

Mills v. South Carolina, 105 S.Cl. 324, 469 U.S. 930, 83 L.Ed.2d 261. 25. S.C—State v. Mills, 114 S.E.2d 324, 281 S.C. 60, certiorari denied

Mills v. South Carolina, 105 S.Cl. 324. 469 U.S. 930, 83 L.Ed.2d 261. Applicability of double jeopardy to prosecution for lesser included

offense see infra § 251. 26. U.S.—Green v. U.S., App.D.C, 78 S.Cl. 22!. 355 U.S. 184, 2

L.Ed.2d 199. 27. U.S.—U.S.v. Crosley, E.D.Pa.. 634F.Supp. 28,affirmed 787 F.2d

584. Conn.—State v. Van Sam, 503 A.2d 557, 198 Conn. 369. 111.—People v, Thomas, 155 N.E.2d 16, 15 Ill.2d 344, certiorari denied

Thomas v. Illinois. 79 S.Ct. Ii43, 359 U.S. 1005, 3 L.Ed.2d 1034. 22CJ.S-13 

## CRIMINAL LAW § 231

exists u manifest necessity therefor, unii such discharge will not

~.support it pleu uf former jeopardy.

__ Library References
Criminal Law «=18l, 182, 184.
LiiFave & Israel Criminal Procedure Vol. :i § 2-\.2{b). 

# An accusedisjjlaced injeopardy once he is put on" trial before a jury so that if the jury is_ 

# 'discharged without his consent he, generallyj cannot betriecTagain.26 However, the"discharge" "ot a jury" prior to a verdict of conviction or 

## "acquittal is nofnecessarily", or inall cases, a bar "to a subsequent "trial of an" accused" under the 

## '"Same indictment.27 Generally, there must be a"

manifest, imperious, urgent, real, or "absolute ne 

## cessity for the dischafgeTSf tnTjury"without it" 

# "having rendered aver3ict72H ariflfwhen such necessity exists, apleaofformerjeopardy will not ^prevail on a subseqjjent trial,29 even" though a<> "cusedToes not consent to the^ischarge of the jury.80 '"" 

## On the other hand, if the jury is discharged without verdict and without accused's consent
. 

# for areason legally insufficient and without an '

. Absolute, imperious, overriding, oroverruling ne- f^s- 

# 'cessity for iCTHe"discharge is equivalent tp_an-s^ ^cquittal^nH"lnay~Be pleaded as a"barto a x

Subsequent indictment,31 as where the case is taken from"thejury for mere matter of conveMass.—Commonwealth v. Steward. 483 N.E.2d 1091. 390 Mass. 76. Ohio—State v. Palmieri. App..46 N.E.2d 318. 28 O.L.A. 398. 130.0.

517, appeal dismissed 18N.E.2d 985, 135 OhioSi. 30, 13O.O.526. 28. U.S.—Oregon v. Kennedy. Or.. 102 S.Cl. 2083, 456U.S. 667, 72

L.Ed.2d 4it), on lemaiid Slate v. Kennedy, ti57 P.2d 717, 61 Or.App 469, affirmed060P.2d 1316, 295 Dr. 2o0—Wade v.Hunler. Kan., 69 S.Cl. 834, 336 U.S. 684, 93 L.Ed. 974. rehearing denied 69S.Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921, 93 L.Ed. 1730.

U.S. v.Jarvis, C.A.9(Cal.), 792 F.2d 767,certiorari denied 107 S.Cl. 182. 479 U.S. 852, 93 L.Ed.2d 116. Ill—People v.Thomas. 155 N.E.2d 16. 15 ill.2d344, certiorari denied

Thomas v, Illinois. 79 S.Cl. 1143. 359 U.S. 1005. 3 L.Ed.2d 1034. NY.—McCabe v. County Court of Bronx County, 199 N.Y.S.2d 247,

24 Misc.2d 477. 29 US —Wade v. Hunter. Kan., 69 S.Ct. 834, 336 U.S. 684. 93 L.Ed.

974, rehearing 69 S.Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921. 93 L.Ed. 1730.

Blair v. White. C.C.A.Kan.. 24 F.2d 323. HI.—People v.Thomas, 155 N.E.2d 16. 15 lll.2d344. certiorari denied

Thomas v. Illinois. 79 S.Cl. 1143. 359 U.S. 1005, 3 L.Ed.2d 1034. Mich.—Exparte Earle, 25 N.W.2d202, 316 Mich. 295. Nev.—State v. Helm. 209 P.2d 187, 66 Nev. 286. certiorari denied Helm

v. Slate of Nevada. 70 S.Cl. 794, 339 U.S. 942, 94 L.Ed. 1358. 30. Ky.—Baker v. Commonwealth, 132 S.W.2d 766, 280 Ky. 165. 31. U.S.—Comcro v. U.S.. C.C.A.Cal., 48 F.2d 69. 

### 277 

# •^

VW_. UulaJ/?• 1



## fir 'till •Ml

# cL- r&-r 

# §231 CRIMINALLAW Pr<^^5^^ /
fX*? dence to an impartial jury,-" and where a trial nience.32



## The cojixts are to determinejii the|r__discretjpn whether under alljhe circumstances of_each case 

## imperious"or urgent necessity exists.3;t The<Je~ termination by the trial court"to abort a^cfiminal proceeding where jeopardy has attached is not 

# one tobe ligfitTy-undertakenT^inceJEheinterestof" defendant fn"haying his fate determined by the 

# 1ury"first_impaneled "is'"itself...a' weighty one.^ Although the trial court's" view as to the necessi 

## ty for.discharging the juryjs^entitled to deference,^5its discretion is not unlimited; m the court "cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously.?7 No ab

stract forihuja,.should be mechanically applied,38 arid all circumstances should be taken into ac 

## count^ Right to have trial completed by a particular tribunal.



### As discussed supra § 208, the constitutional 

### protection against double jeopardy embraces de fendant's valued right to have his trial completed 

### by a particular tribunal; such right means that he has a significant interest in the decision whether to take the case from the jury.*0 How 

### ever, the right to have the trial concluded by a particular tribunal is sometimes subordinate to the public interest in affording the prosecutor 

### one full and fair opportunity to present his eviU.S. v. Harriman, D.C.N.Y., 130 F.Supp. 198. Cal.—People v. Valenti, 316 P.2d 633, 49 C.2d 199. Ky.—Lillard v. Commonwealth, 267 S.W.2d 712. N.J.—State v. Locklear, 108 A.2d 436, 16 N.J. 232. 32. U.S.—U.S. v. Harriman, D.C.N.Y., 130 F.Supp. 198. N.Y.—People v. Colon, 184 N.Y.S.2d 537, 16 Misc.2d 1061. 33. U.S.—Wade v. Hunler. Kan., 69 S.Ct. 834. 336 U.S. 684, 93 L.Ed

974, rehearing denied 69 S.Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921. 93 L.Ed. 1730. N.M.—State v. Brooks, 279 P.2d 1048, 59 N.M. 130. N.Y.—People ex rel. Epling v. De Voe, 136 N.Y.S.2d 650, 284 A.D.

1092, affirmed 130 N.E.2d 616, 309 N.Y. 818. 34. U.S.—Illinois v. Somerville, III., 93 S.Ct. 1066, 410 US. 458. 35

L.Ed.2d 425. 35. N.Y.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77. 67 N.Y.2d 383. 502

N.Y.S.2d 972. 36. NY.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77, 67 N.Y.2d 383. 502

N.Y.S.2d 972. 37. N.Y.—People v. Colon. 184 N,Y.S.2d 537, 18 Misc.2d 1061. Okl—Yarbrough v. Slate, 210 P.2d 375. 90 Okl.Cr. 74. 38. U.S.—Wade v. Hunter, Kan., 69 S.Ct. 834. 336 U.S. 684, 93 L.Ed.

974, rehearing denied 69 S.Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921. 93 L.Ed. 1730. 39. U.S.—Wade v. Hunter, Kan., 69 S.Ct. 834, 336 U.S. 684, 93 L.Ed.

974, rehearing denied 69 S.Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921, 93 L.Ed. 1730. Mich.—Ex parte Earle, 25 N.W.2d 202, 316 Mich. 295. 40. Me.—State v. Flick, 495 A.2d 339. 

## court properly declares a mistrial, the criminal trial may be terminated before the issue of defen 

## dant's guilt has been resolved by that particular tribunal.42 

### § 232. Grounds 

### The manifestnecessity permitting Ihedisclim-jre ofujury without renderingu verdict and withoutinvolving doublejeop ardy may result from various circumstances, such us a defective indictment, the absence of witnesses for the prosecution, prose cutorial misconduct, und the disqualification ofjurors. Library References Criminal Law «=182, 184. 

### LaFave &IsraelCriminal Procedure Vol. 3 $24.2(b, c). 

### The manifest necessity permitting the dis charge of ajury without rendering a verdict and 

## without justifying a plea of double jeopardymay arise from various causes or circumstances.*3 

### Such circumstances must be in the nature of a 

### cause or emergency over which neither court nor attorney has control,4* or which could not have 

## been averted by diligence and care.JS The power to declare a mistrial and subject defendant to retrial ought to be used with the greatest cau 

## tion, under urgent circumstances and for very plain and obvious causes.46

The court may discharge the jury without

41. U.S.—Arizona v. Washington, Ariz., 98 S.Ct. 824, 434 U.S. 497,

54 L.Ed.2d 717. 42. Colo.—People v. Schwartz, 678 P.2d 1000. 43. Iowa—State v. Critclli, 24 N.W.2d 113. 237 Iowa 1271. 44. Cal.—People v. Valenti. 316 P.2d 633, 49 C.2d 199. Ohio—State v. Palmicri, App., 46 N.E.2d 318, 28 O.L.A. 398, 130.0.

517, appeal dismissed 18 N.E.2d 985, 135 Ohio St. 30, 130.0. 526. Ulah—Siaie v. Whitman, 74 P.2d 096. 93 Utah 557. 45. U.S.—Himmelfarb v. U.S., C.A.Cal.. 175 F.2d 924. certiorari

denied 70 S.Cl. 103, 338 U.S. 860, 94 L.Ed. 527, and Ormoni v. U.S., 70 S.Cl. 103, 338 U.S. 860, 94 L.Ed. 527. 46. U.S.—U.S. v. Wilson, Pa.. 95 S.Ct. 1013, 420 U.S. 332. 43 LEd.2d

232—Downum v. U.S.. Tex.. 83 S.Cl. 1033, 372 U.S. 734, 10LEd.2d 100. Mistrial to enable government witnesses to consult with

attorneys Trial judge, who, on his own motion, declared mistrial to enable government's witnesses lo consult with their own attorneysabused his discretion in discharging jury and reprosecution of defendant would violate double jeopardy provision of Fifth Amendment. U.S.—U.S. v. Jom, Utah. 91 S.Ct. 547, 400 U.S. 470, 27 L.Ed.2d 543

(per Mr. Justice Harlan, three justices concurring and twojustices concurring in judgment). Prior relationship ofjudge with victim

Disqualification of trial judgebased on his priorrelationship with robbery victim clearly necessitated declaration of mistrial, and subse

### 278 •K 

# ':m

:*. *

•\,:.

•::a-

## § 229 CRIMINAL LAW 

# 22 C. J. S. after the

-jury have been impaneled, there is former jeopardy.7

E. MISTRIAL; DISCHARGE OK JURY WITHOUT VERDICT

istrial in General When a mistrial is declared over defendant's objection, the government has the right to retry the defendant only where there i.4 manifest necessity for the net, or (he ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. Library References Criminal Ijaw ©=!&>, 1B4. LaFave &• Israel Criminal Procedure Vol. 3 § 24.2(b). 

## Generally, the doublejeopardy clause does not prevent the government from forcing defendant to submit to a second trial where the first trial 

### ended in a mistrial.8 The practical justification for the exception to the "one trial" rule so as to permit a retrial of defendant after a mistrial is simply that it is fairer to both defendant and the government.9 However, when a mistrial is de 

## clared over defendant's objection, the govern 

## ment has the right to retry defendantonly where there is manifest necessity for the act,10 or the

7. Kan.—Slate v. Rush, 26 P.2d 581, 138 Kan. 465. N.Y.—People ex rel. Sabatina v. Jennings. 177 N.Y.S. 210, 108Misc.

93, 37 N.Y.Cr. 550. affirmed 185 N.Y.S. 949, 194 A.D. 950. Tex.—Garza v. State, Cr.App.. 658 S.W.2d 152, certiorari denied Texas

v. Garza, 104 S.Cl. 194, 464 U.S. 863, 78 L.Ed.2d 171. 8. U.S.—U.S. v. Scotl, Mich., 98 S.Cl. 2187, 437 U.S. 82. 57 L.Ed.2d

65. on remand 579 F.2d 1013, ceniorari denied 99 S.Cl. 1266, 440 U.S. 929. 59 L.Ed.2d 486. rehearing denied 99 S.Ct. 226, 439 U.S. 883, 58 L.Ed.2d 197—Jcffers v. U.S., Ind., 97 S.Ct. 2207. 432 U.S. 137. 53 L.Ed.2d 168, rehearing denied 98 S.Ct. 241, 434 U.S. 880, 54 L.Ed.2d 164—Lee v. U.S., Ind.. 97 S.Cl. 2141, 432 U.S. 23, 53 L.Ed. 2d 80—U.S. v. Taleo, N.Y.. 84 S.Ct. 1587, 377 U.S. 463, 12 L.Ed.2d 448.

U.S v Si.^cr. C.A 8(Miiin.j. 785 F.;d 22S. ceniorari Jenioj !U7 S.Ct. 273, 479 U.S. 883, 93 L.Ed.2d 249—U.S. v. Borokinui, C.A.Va., 748 F.2d 2J6. Mass.—A Juvenile v. Commonwealth, 465 N.£.2d 240, 392 Muss. 52. 9. U.S.—U.S.v. Wilson, Pa., 95 S.Ct. 1013.420 U.S. 332, 43 L.Ed.2d

232. 10. U.S.—Arizona v. Washington. Ariz.. 98 S.Ct. 824, 434 U.S. 497.

54 L.Ed.2d 717—U.S. v. Sanfoid. Mont.. 97 S.Cl. 20. 429 U.S. 14, 50 L.Ed.2d 17, on remand 547 F.2d 1085—U.S. v. Diilitz, Fta.. 96 S.Ct. 1075, 424 U.S. 600, 47 L.Ed.2d 267. on remand 538 F.2d 1214, rehearing denied 542 F.2<i 1174, ceniorari denied 97 S.Cl 1133 429 U.S. 1104. 51 L.Ed.2d 556—U.S. v. Wilson, Pa., 95 S.Ct. 1013.420 U.S. 332. 43 L.Ed.2d 232.

U.S. v. Perez. 22 U.S. 579. 9 Wheat. 579, 6 L.Ed. 165. •U.S. v. Weils, C.A.IO(Cola). 790 F.2d 73. Conn.—State v. Van Sant, 503 A.2d 557, 198 Conn. 369. D.C.—U.S. v. Glover. 731 F.2d 41. 235 U.S.App.D.C. 194. Me.—State v. Frtel, 500 A.2d 631. Nev.—State v. Comicry. 679 P.2d 1266. 100 Nev. 256. 

## ends ofpublicjusticewould otherwise be defeat 

# ed.>• Ineffect, the manifest necessity testpro tectsdefendant against bad faith conductby the judge or prosecutor which results in a mistrial 

## beingdeclared and gives theprosecution a more favorable opportunity to convict defendant.12



## Manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial ad mits of no precise formulation I3 or mechanical 

# application," for the high degree of necessity. 

# mandatedbythephrasecanbefound in avariety of circumstances;15 accordingly, the degree of deference to be accorded the trial judge's deter mination of manifest necessity varies with the circumstances of each case.16 The strictest scru 

### tiny is applied to the court's determination where 

## accused claims that themistrialwasintentionally caused by the prosecution.17 At the otherend of the spectrum, great deference is accorded the 

# triaTjudge's conclusion trTaTajnistrialis required 

# rJecauseof adeadlocked jiiry> Anydoubtmust.

11. U.S.—U.S.v.Sanford,Mont., 97 S.Ct. 20, 429 U.S. 14,50 L.Ed.2d

17. on remand 547 F.2d 1085—U.S.v, Dinitz, Fla., 96 S.Cl. 1075, 424U.S. 600, 47 L.Ed.2d 267, on remand 538 F.2d 1214, rehearing denied 542 F.2d 1174,certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 1133,429 U.S. 1104, 51 L.Ed.2d 556—U.S. v. Wilson, Pa., 95 S.Cl. 1013,420 U.S. 332, 43 L.Ed.2d 232—U.S. v. Jorn, Utah, 91 S.Ct. 547, 400 U.S. 470, 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (per Mr. Justice Harlan, three justices concurring in judgment)—Gori v. U.S.. N.Y.. 81 S.Ct. 1523, 367 U.S. 364, 6 L.Ed. 2d 901, rehearing denied 82 S.Ct. 25. 368 U.S. 870. 7 L.Ed.2d 70.

U.S. v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579, 9 Wheat. 579, 6 L.Ed. 165. U.S. v. Salvador, C.A.Ariz., 740 F.2d 752, certiorari denied 105 S.Cl. 978, 469 U.S. 1196, 83 L.Ed.2d 980. Mo.—State v. Fiizpatrick, 676 S.W.2d 831. N.J.—Siaio •„. Abbaii, 493 A.2d 513, 99 N.J. 416. 12. Colo.—People v. Schwarlz. 678 P.2d 1000. 13. U.S.—Abdi v. Stale ofGeorgia,C.A.Ga..744 F.2d 1500, rehearing

denied 749 F.2d 733. certiorari denied 105 S.Cl. 1871, 471 U.S. 1006, 85 L.Ed.2d 164. 14. U.S.—Abdiv. Slate of Georgia. C.A.Ga., 744F.2d 1500, rehearing

denied 749 F.2d 733, certiorari denied 105 S.Cl. 1871, 471 U.S. 1006, 85 L.Ed.2d 164. 15. U.S.—Abdi v. SlateofGeorgia, C.A.Ga., 744 F.2d1500. rehearing

ilcnied 749 F.2d 733, ceniorari denied 105S.Ct. 1871, 471 U.S. 1006, 85 L.Ed.2d 164. 16. U.S.—U.S. v. Jurvis, C.A.9(Cal.j, 792 F.2d 767. certiorari denied

107 S.Ct. 182, 479 U.S. 852, 93 L.Ed.2d 116—U.S. v. Jaramillo, C.A. Nev., 745 F.2d 1245, certiorari denied 105S.Ct. 2142, 471 U.S. 1066, 85 L.Ed.2d 499. 17. U.S.—U.S. v. Jarvis, C.A.9(Cal.). 792 F.2d 767, certiorari denied

107 S.Ct. 182. 479 U.S..852. 93 L.Ed.2d 116. 18. U.S.—U.S. v. Jarvis,C.A.9(Cal.), 792 F.2d767, certioraridenied

107 S.Cl. 182, 479 U.S. 852. 93 L.£d.2d 116. 

### 276 

# %