Case Name: Mack Shan LEWIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1972-05-24
Citations: 481 S.W.2d 804
Docket Number: No. 44926
Parties: Mack Shan LEWIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 481
Pages: 804–806

Head Matter:
Mack Shan LEWIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 44926.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 24, 1972.
Rehearing Denied July 12, 1972.
James A. Moore, Daniel 0. Newsom, Michael W. Eheman, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Jack Bodiford, Asst. Dist.
Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION
ROBERTS, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for robbery by assault. Trial was to a jury which assessed punishment at eight years.
Appellant's sole ground of error is "The trial court committed reversible error when he refused to allow appellant's attorney to inspect a copy of a police report which was used or exhibited before the jury, for purpose of cross-examination."
There were two police officers who testified in this cause, McRae and Spaulding. McRae arrested appellant while appellant was fleeing the scene.
Officer Spaulding was the first officer to testify and after having testified that he had made an offense report which was a "partial summary", he .then testified that he had read an offense report the day before the trial. At this time the appellant asked the court to have a copy of the offense report for purpose of cross-examination. The officer had testified that he had read several pages of the report, some of which had not been prepared by him. Upon objection by the State to giving appellant the whole report being sustained by the court, the appellant was allowed to have only that portion prepared by Officer Spaulding and not the additional part that he read to refresh his memory.
This is the error assigned by the appellant herein.
When Officer McRae was called to testify, the same request was renewed and the State handed the entire offense report to counsel for appellant. Officer Spaulding was not recalled for further cross-examination. Further, appellant did not preserve his error because no request was made to have the report placed in a sealed envelope and forwarded to this Court for examination on appeal. Leal v. State, 442 S.W.2d 736 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Pruitt v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 187, 355 S.W.2d 528 (1962); Stevenson v. State, 456 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Cr.App.1970).
There being no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.