Court Opinion

ID: 9765104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:50:51.634759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:57.498873
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DALLY, Commissioner.
The appellant’s motion for leave to file a motion for rehearing was granted. On motion for rehearing the appellant presents only one complaint. He strenuously urges that this Court was in error in its disposition of his contention concerning the State’s asking the appellant to display his hands before the jury. He contends that this constituted impeachment on an immaterial matter requiring the reversal of the case. On original submission it was held that the record presented nothing for review because the record failed to show whether the appellant’s hands had the appearance of one engaged in the occupation he claimed to pursue. Consequently it *869could not be determined whether or not he had been impeached. Cf. Pittman v. State, 488 S.W.2d 89 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). We remain convinced that the disposition of the appellant’s contention was proper and the same result may also be reached in another way.
The ground of error which we are considering is ground of error number four in appellant’s brief and it reads:
“The Court erred in allowing the State’s request that the hands of the defendant be inspected at close range by the jury.”
Although the ground of error does not fully state the error relied upon we may look to the argument in its support for an understanding of the alleged error. See Art. 40.09, § 9, V.A.C.C.P.
Two of the witnesses called by the appellant and the appellant himself testified that the appellant was employed as an automobile mechanic. While the appellant was being cross-examined by the prosecutor the prosecutor stated:
“Q I would like to see your hands. Turn them over. The other one.
[PROSECUTOR]: At this time I would like to ask the defendant to stand down and exhibit his hands to the jury.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I’m going to object to that, Your Honor. I don’t know what materiality that’s got.”
At this point the trial court announced a recess and the jury was excused from the courtroom. During the absence of the jury it was ascertained that the State was asking the appellant to exhibit his hands to the jury for the purpose of impeachment of his statement that his occupation was as an auto mechanic. While the jury was retired appellant’s counsel objected on the grounds that the authority presented to the Court was not in point, but a specific objection was not articulated. The jury was then returned to the courtroom and the prosecutor proceeded as follows:
“Q Let me see your hands, Mr. De-Leon. Would you step down here, please ?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Now, Your Honor, I’m going to object to him getting — they can view his hands up there on the stand but I dont believe that the defendant has to get off the witness chair to do this, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Note our exception.
Q Please open your hands up like this. Come on down here. Now, would you turn them over? You can take the witness stand. You testified a little while ago that you were working as a mechanic, right now, did you not ?
A Yes, sir.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I believe that the testimony was that he was a mechanic’s helper.
[PROSECUTOR]: The testimony was he was working as a mechanic right now.
THE COURT: Let the witness testify.
[PROSECUTOR]: I believe he said ‘yes.’
Q What kind of mechanical work do you do?
A I put in plugs and brakes and test them.
Q Do you ever skin up—
A I take off starters.
*870Q Do you ever skin up your hands?
A On — most all the time I work in gloves.
Q Do you know any other mechanic with long fingernails?
A I do not know. I never notice hands.”
The prosecutor then pursued a different line of interrogation. We again hold as on original submission that the error claimed was not properly preserved. In addition, we hold that the error, if any, was not preserved because at the time of trial no objection was made on the ground urged on appeal; namely, that the appellant was being impeached on a collateral matter. See Cotton v. State, 500 S.W.2d 482 (1973); Sierra v. State, 482 S.W.2d 259 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Valdez v. State, 472 S.W.2d 754 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Hinkle v. State, 442 S.W.2d 728 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).
Further, if the record can be construed as showing the impeachment of the appellant, it was on a material matter. The appellant had introduced evidence to show that he was an auto mechanic, that he did not understand the English language and that in that occupation he could only deal with and serve Spanish speaking persons. This evidence was introduced in an attempt to show that his confession was not voluntarily made. It would appear legitimate for the State to ask the appellant to exhibit his hands before the jury in order that they might observe whether or not they appeared to be the hands of a mechanic. If his hands did not have the appearance of an auto mechanic’s hands, it would tend to rebut the testimony which he offered. The trial court is granted considerable leeway in the admission of such testimony and in light of the facts in this record we are not prepared to say that this evidence was immaterial.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.