Court Opinion

ID: 9769543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:54:07.81666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:38:23.885770
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge,
dissenting.
Jamerson was convicted for murder with malice under the former penal code. Lottie Irene Waddle was robbed and murdered at a service station where she worked on February 4, 1970. Twenty-five dollars was taken from the cash drawer. Some of the station’s inventory, including several containers of motor oil, STP and brake fluid, was also taken.
On February 6, 1970, appellant was arrested in Grand Prairie for public intoxication and placed in jail. His automobile contained several oil and STP cans. He confessed to the robbery-murder of Mrs. Waddle. He also confessed to participation in three other offenses: a robbery-murder on January 20, 1970 in Pantego; a robbery on February 3, 1970 in Grand Prairie; and a robbery-murder on February 4, 1970 in Grand Prairie.
Appellant executed a consent to search his residence. The murder weapon was found there.
In the instant case, appellant raised a defense of insanity resulting from chronic alcoholism. He introduced lay testimony to *289support the defense. The sole expert witness testified that appellant was sane at the time of the offense. Appellant raised the issue of mental disease or defect caused by chronic alcoholism. The trial court charged on the issue of insanity as a defensive theory. Appellant complains that the court erred in admitting evidence of the other robberies where murders were committed.
The testimony of the three other robberies tended to defeat the defensive issue of insanity and were admissible. The trial court followed the correct rule.
Albrecht v. State, 486 S.W.2d 97 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), sets out when extraneous offenses may be admissible. There the Court wrote that they are admissible “(6) [t]o refute a defensive theory raised by the accused.”
Insanity is a defensive issue raised by the accused in the present case. The evidence of the other robberies and murders committed in a like manner tends to defeat the defensive theory.
In Asay v. State, 456 S.W.2d 903 (Tex.Cr. App.1970), the conviction was for indecent exposure to a child. He testified that he was intoxicated at the time of the offense. The commission of another offense of like nature by him was proved. He contended that there was no exception to the rule prohibiting evidence of an extraneous offense. This Court held:
“. . . To the contrary, the testimony is admissible to rebut appellant’s testimony that he was intoxicated. 23 Tex.Jur.2d, Evidence, Sec. 195, n. 17. See also Rangel v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 620, 352 S.W.2d 275.”
This question is governed by Sanders v. State, 449 S.W.2d 262 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). In Sanders, the accused was convicted of robbery. At trial he advanced a defensive theory of temporary insanity by reason of a psychomotor seizure. On appeal, he complained of the admission of two other robberies. We affirmed and held the evidence was admissible to rebut the defensive theory of insanity.
What is the difference between the two cases and the present case? They should be distinguished or overruled.
No error is shown. The judgment should be affirmed.
ONION, P. J., joins in this dissent.