Court Opinion

ID: 9776387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:33:37.426954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:38.335021
License: Public Domain

ONION, Presiding Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent to the holding that the extraneous offense was admissible.
“The general rule in all English speaking jurisdictions is that an accused is entitled to be tried on the accusation *667made in the State’s pleading and not on some collateral crime, or for being a criminal generally. The rule is now deemed axiomatic and is followed in all jurisdictions.” Young v. State, 159 Tex. Cr.R. 164, 261 S.W.2d 836.
See also 23 Tex.Jur.2d, Evidence, § 194, p. 294. There are exceptions to the general rule.
In 23 Tex.Jur.2d Evidence, § 195, p. 300, it is written:
“Evidence of the commission of other crimes by the accused is admissible as part of the res gestae or to show identity of person or crime, intent, motive, scienter, system, and malice. Evidence of other crimes is also admissible to discredit the accused when he testifies in his own behalf, or to show his failure to have reformed, or to controvert a defensive theory advanced by him. These exceptions to the general rule prohibiting evidence of other crimes are discussed in greater detail immediately hereinafter. It must be remembered, however, that even though evidence of another crime may be relevant to the instant proceeding, such evidence should not be admitted unless the commission of the other crime is clearly proved and the accused is shown to have been its perpetrator.”
See also Sumner v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 501, 112 S.W.2d 453 (1938).
There are occasions though when the exceptions do not come into play.
Only recently in Hafti v. State, 416 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), this court, speaking through Judge Belcher, said:
“The rule appears to be consistent that if the testimony of the state leaves no question as to intent or identity of the defendant, proof of an independent crime is not admissible. Also, where there is positive testimony to support the state’s case, proof of ether independent offenses is not admissible. 1 Branch 2d 200, Sec. 188; 5 Branch 2d 31, Sec. 2601; 23 Tex.Jur.2d 306, Sec. 197; Story v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 266, 296 S.W. 296; Taylor v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 161, 134 S.W.2d 277; 42 A.L.R.2d 854.”
“Furthermore, if the evidence presented by the state leaves no doubt as to the identity of the accused or his connection with the offense charged, evidence concerning his commission of other crimes is inadmissible.” 23 Tex.Jur.2d, Evidence, § 197, p. 306.
See also Bennett v. State, 422 S.W.2d 438, 439 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Chandler v. State, 417 S.W.2d 68, 69 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Martinez v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 159, 153 S.W.2d 721 (1940); Taylor v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 161, 134 S.W.2d 277 (1939); Ball v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 579, 39 S.W.2d 619 (overruled on another point) (1931); Story v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 266, 296 S.W. 296 (1927); Cano v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 271, 225 S.W. 1097 (1920) and Kelley v. State, 80 Tex.Cr.R. 249, 190 S.W. 173; 79 Tex.Cr.R. 362, 185 S.W. 570 (1916).
In the instant case the complaining witness Tutt clearly identified the appellant and his companions and described in detail the robbery which was the basis of the prosecution. The testimony was undisputed and left no question as to the intent or identity of the appellant. The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence. No defensive theory was urged.
As the State’s second witness in its case in chief, the State offered, over objection, the testimony of McWilliams as to an extraneous offense committed upon him and all its details. The extraneous offense was not admissible as part of the res gestae of the offense charged and it was not admissible to show flight under the circumstances of this case.
Though flight of an accuse'd is not ground for presuming the guilt of an accused, it is still a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn. Ysasaga v. State, 444 S.W.2d 305 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).
*668The State could, as it did, show that the appellant and his companions were apprehended in Arizona after the robbery of Tutt and in possession of the driver’s license of Tutt. This was sufficient to show flight. Flight should not be used merely as a vehicle to show proof of independent crimes when it tends to shed no light on any disputed issue in the case.
For the reasons stated, I dissent.