Court Opinion

ID: 9863234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 03:16:35.923636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:39:12.030818
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Judge
(dissenting).
The record reflects that the state was unable to produce the lady who called the police about 9 P.M. on November 14, 1964, to report a “disturbance with a gun” at her home and who, in the presence of the appellant, told police officer Billy D. Bate-man who responded to her call that appellant had threatened to shoot her and her daughter and that the gun was in the back yard and she would show him where it was.
Subpoenas and attachments had been issued for the eye witnesses which had not been served. Their affidavits were produced by the defense to the effect that the first time they saw the gun was when the police officer took it out of a tree and that a misunderstanding between appellant and the granddaughter of the complainant was the reason the complaint was filed and she regretted having filed it.
The trial judge correctly ruled that the affidavits were not admissible in evidence.
The case was submitted to the jury as one of circumstantial evidence.
In addition to his testimony in regard to the report of the lady of the house, Officer Bateman testified that she accompanied him into the back yard of her home and pointed out the location of the gun and he took it out of a tree. The gun, a Smith and Wesson snubnosed .38 caliber special revolver, was introduced in evidence and the state offered proof identifying it by *442serial number and description as the pistol purchased by appellant on August 1, 1964, at Ray’s Hardware and Sporting Goods Store.
The record also reflects that appellant told the officers that the pistol was his.
The prior conviction for carrying a pistol alleged for enhancement of punishment was proved.
The evidence is sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict.
There was testimony to support the argument that the jury could deduce from the evidence that Mrs. Belton and her 15 year old daughter were scared of appellant.
The court sustained appellant’s objection to the statement of the attorney for the state: “I submit to you he hasn’t the right to scare off two women to make them disobey an order of this court.”
The trial court did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial because of such remarks.
The judgment should be affirmed.