Court Opinion

ID: 9775608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:04:53.221868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:29.406751
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ODOM, Judge.
On original submission this cause was reversed because the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of two extraneous offenses. We held the cross-examination of Mrs. McCrary, one of the State’s witnesses, did not raise the issue of identity.
In its brief supporting its Motion for Rehearing, the State contends the cross-examination of all the witnesses called on the State’s case-in-chief, taken together, was sufficient to raise the issue of identity and permit the introduction of extraneous offenses. In support of this theory the State enumerates the following “unexplained discrepancies elicited as a result of cross-examination:
“A.) Two witnesses stated the robber wore glasses. (Mrs. McCrary and Sandra McCrary).
“B.) Three witnesses said the robber was not wearing glasses ([Mr.] Mc-Crary, Officer Fulton, and Martha Boothe).
“C.) All the witnesses, except Martha Boothe, stated the robber had a mustache. Martha Boothe stated that the robber had no mustache and was clean-shaven.
“D.) Some of the witnesses stated the robber had long sideburns. No long sideburns were characteristic of Appellant as reflected by his mug shot and his presence in the line-up.
“E.) Mrs. McCrary identified another individual in the line-up as the robber and could not identify Appellant at trial as being the robber.
“F.) Tefteller’s testimony on cross-examination elicited the fact that of all the witnesses to the robbery at the lineup, three or four could not identify Appellant as the individual who committed the robbery.
“G.) Out of the three or four witnesses who could not identify Appellant at the line-up, only Mrs. McCrary was present at the trial.”
Although on first impression it appears that numerous discrepancies were developed on cross-examination, a closer examination of the record dispels that conclusion. The apparent conflict among the witnesses on whether the robber wore glasses presents the greatest initial suggestion that identity is in issue. An examination of the record, however, reveals a reasonable explanation which by no means puts identity in issue. The offense was committed as follows: Appellant and a companion entered the home of Keith McCrary, manager of a Gibson store, and held his family hostage. Appellant then took the family car and went to the store, where he met Mc-Crary and robbed the store, aided by the fact that his companion was holding Mc-Crary’s family hostage. The witnesses who said the robber was wearing glasses were those who observed him at the home. Those who said he was not wearing glasses were the ones who observed him at the store. Thus, while the “discrepancy” may have shown that the robber was a *895clever criminal who attempted to change his appearance in the midst of the crime, it did not undermine or jeopardize the State’s case or place identity in issue.
The other asserted discrepancies had an equally insignificant impact on the State’s proof of identity and did not authorize the introduction of extraneous offenses.
The State’s Motion for Rehearing is overruled.