Court Opinion

ID: 9777627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:17:18.015075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:57.550021
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ONION, Presiding Judge.
Appellant vigorously urges that this Court was in error in affirming the judgment upon the State’s motion for rehearing holding there was no reversible error in the prosecutorial conduct of calling a co-indictee to the stand under the circumstances presented.
He further contends that if we were not in error we have never addressed ourselves to the other grounds of error raised on original submission. In this regard he is correct.
The case at bar has caused this Court some concern as evidenced by the earlier opinions and the division of the Court. A review of the facts may set things in a better perspective.
The record reflects that at approximately 8:10 a. m. on March 3, 1968, two colored males entered David Arthur Simmons’ grocery store in the city of Dallas and at gunpoint robbed him of $65.00. Simmons identified the appellant Mathis and Charles Edward Jones, who were being jointly tried, as the two men revealing that Mathis brandished a .22 cal. pistol during the course of the robbery. Simmons’ son, David, also positively identified Mathis and Jones as the two robbers. Dallas police officer Templeton arrived on the scene shortly after the alleged offense, obtained a description of the two men from Simmons and a 12 or 14 year old boy who was outside the store during the alleged robbery 1 and radioed the facts of the robbery. his investigation and the descriptions to the police dispatcher. Twenty or thirty minutes after receiving a broadcast from the dispatcher and not long after 8 a. m., Dallas police officer Reems observed four colored males pushing a white Chevrolet Corvair automobile approximately a mile from the scene of the robbery. Two of the men fit the description given. He then detained the appellant Mathis, Jones, Jackie Ray Green and Michael Lee Hill.2 Acting upon a radio call officer Templeton arrived at the scene of the arrest and a search of the persons arrested and the car was initiated. In the back seat of the Corvair a fully loaded .22 caliber pistol was found. A search of the trunk revealed a shotgun. On appellant’s person was found a paring knife, three shotgun shells, and $35.00. A search of Jones revealed $10.00.
Within approximately two hours of the alleged offense the complaining witness had identified the appellant and Jones in a police lineup.
Testifying in his own behalf the appellant Mathis, who was on probation for burglary, related he had left his home early on the date in question, a Sunday, when only his 3 or 4 year old niece was awake, that he had gone to his employer’s home by 8 a. m. to collect his pay, and was standing in front of a pool hall on Second Avenue when he observed some boys pushing a Corvair and that he went to help since he *803knew some of the individuals. He testified Jackie Ray Green came up later. Mathis related that it was discovered a gas line was “busted” and that a boy named Jerry left to get a new part when a police officer arrived and arrested him. He denied the officers found anything on him except the money he had received from his employer.
Jones, who had twice previously been convicted of felonies, testified he had been at Claude’s Cafe since 1 a. m. and left there about 8:25 a. m. with a man named Jerry in a 1962 or 1963 Corvair to go see Jerry’s cousin, who was not at home and on the way back to the cafe the car broke down. He revealed that Michael Hill (who apparently owned the car or had borrowed the same) approached the car, and then Mathis came from the direction of the pool hall and offered to help, and that thereafter Jackie Ray Green appeared. When pushing was of no avail, according to Jones, the hood of the car was raised and when it was discovered a gas line was “busted” Jerry left to get a replacement. Thereafter Jones related the police arrived and arrested the remaining foursome and took $10.00 from him earned working parttime at wrecking houses.
On cross-examination Jones, while admitting he knew Cassandra, Jackie Green’s sister, denied he was at Green’s house at 5:30 a. m. on the date of the alleged offense or saw her there or anytime during that morning. He specifically denied that he, Mathis, Luther Johnson and Michael Hill met at Green’s house at “5:30 that morning.”
In his first ground of error appellant urges the trial court failed to grant his motion for a mistrial when the complaining witness testified as to extraneous offenses not connected to the appellant.
The record reflects the following occurred during the direct examination of the complaining witness:
“Q. What drew your attention to him (appellant) ?
“A. Well, I knew he wasn’t a regular customer and we had been robbed several times out there—
“MR. LAUDAU (appellant’s counsel): Objection, Your Honor. I ask that the Jury be instructed to disregard that.
“THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen: You will disregard the statement by the witness.
“MR. LANDAU: And we ask for a mistrial at this time.
“THE COURT: Overruled.”
The answer given was certainly responsive to the question asked, and there was nothing to connect the appellant with the earlier offenses mentioned and the careful trial judge was quick to instruct the jury to disregard the statement of the witness.
Under such circumstances, we clearly perceive no error.
Next, appellant contends the court erred in admitting into evidence the pistol found in the Corvair, bullets taken from the pistol, and the shotgun since the same were fruits of an illegal search.
First, we observe that appellant made no claim in the court below that his warrant-less arrest was without probable cause and that the search incident thereto was illegal. Even if he had, the objection would have been without merit. Officer Templeton made an investigation of the robbery, obtained a description of the robbers and their clothing and the type of car in which they departed and relayed the same to the police dispatcher. Acting upon the police broadcast officer Reems detained the appellant and his companions. The search of the individuals and the car was conducted after Templeton arrived. The facts of this case are markedly similar to those of Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419, except in that case there was also involved the question of the right of the officers to conduct a second warrantless search of the car at another time and place several hours after *804the car had been immobilized by the arrest of its occupants. No such question is here presented. The officers had probable cause to arrest without warrant and to search incident to arrest. The items were seized contemporaneous with the arrest.
Still further, the shotgun was never introduced. Testimony as to the shotgun and pistols was admitted without objection and appellant’s counsel expressly stated, “no objection” when the pistol bullets were offered.
We, likewise, find no merit in appellant’s contention, under the circumstances, that all-items taken from the appellant and his codefendant and the vehicle at the time of their arrest were not shown to be connected with the offense charged. Further, no objection on this ground was advanced at the trial.
Appellant also urges the court erred in admitting a paring knife, certain shotgun shells, and money found on his person. The only objection to such evidence was that the chain of custody was not properly established. Officer Templeton testified he took such items from the appellant, placed them in a large envelope and sealed it, filled out an identification card which he stapled to the envelope and placed the same in the police property room. The envelope was brought to the courtroom by another officer where it was unsealed by the witness Templeton who identified the items. Appellant’s complaint at the trial that Templeton should have also written the identification upon the envelope itself is not well taken.
Now we turn to the question which has caused us so much difficulty. After further and deliberate consideration we have concluded that the calling of the witness Green by the State without knowing what he would testify to amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. We further conclude, however, in light of the entire record that the same was harmless error. Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284; Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705. The evidence against the appellant and his co-defendant was overwhelming. Neither claimed to have been with the witness Green at his sister’s house on the morning of the robbery. In fact they testified to the contrary. The questions attempted to be put to Green in the jury’s presence did not bear upon their alibi. While the conduct of the prosecutor was certainly not commendable, the error is not such as to call for reversal.
Appellant's motion for rehearing is overruled.
DOUGLAS, J., concurs for the reasons stated in the opinion on State’s motion for rehearing affirming this cause.

. It was established on cross-examination of Simmons’ son, David, that the 12 or 14 year old boy outside the store had informed the officer that the two men had left the scene in “a small Chevrolet.”

. It appears from the record that a Luther Johnson was later arrested in connection with the alleged offense.