Court Opinion

ID: 9660397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:12:31.438669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:19.167685
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing
WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.
Appellant urges that there is no evidence outside of the confession that any robbery occurred or, in other words, that there was no proof of the corpus delicti. We do not agree.
*506Kenny Richards was the night attendant at the Conoco Station and, after 8 P.M., was on duty alone. He testified that he had custody, management and control of all money taken in and on hand; that he had between $40 and $50 in the cash register, mostly in bills. He was ordered to open the cash register after appellant’s companion was unable to get it open. After he had resumed his position on the floor in the rest room, as he was directed to do, he heard appellant ask his companion who was at the cash register after he had opened it “How much is in there?” Then he was shot. From this time Richards directed his attention to saving his life and did not notice the cash register again.
Officer Gilbert saw appellant and his companion walk out of the front door of the station. “They walked very nonchalent like. They didn’t allow me to see their face, but I was able to see they were reegroes. And they didn’t run immediately. They walked very nonchalantly around the corner as I turned, and when I drove into the station is when they ran.” As he drove in he saw Kenny Richards crawling out of the rest room in a dazed and bloody condition. He called headquarters and pursued the men he had seen running, and after receiving a report from another unit in regard to them, returned to the Conoco Station and found Kenny Richards staggering, dazed and incoherent.
Officer Gilbert testified that the cash register drawer was open and appeared to be empty. He further testified that to his knowledge there was no one around the station from the timé he saw the Negro boys run out of it, other than Kenny Richards.
We do not regard the fact that neither Kenny Richards nor Officer Gilbert made a detailed examination of the cash register, so as to be in position to testify that the money was gone, as fatal to the state’s case. As Officer Gilbert testified, he was “a great deal more alarmed and concerned about the condition of the boy than — about the contents of the cash register.”
While the 40 one dollar bills taken from the pocket of appellant’s companion could not be identified, the evidence mentioned aided by appellant’s confession is, we hold, sufficient to sustain the conviction for the offense of robbery as charged.
The confession may be used in connection with other facts to establish the corpus delicti. Hignett v. State, 170 Texas Cr. Rep. 342, 341 S.W. 2d 166; Watson v. State, 154 Texas Cr. Rep. 438, 227 S.W. 2d 559, and cases there cited.
*507Appellant’s learned counsel forcefully argues that, this being a death penalty case, we should consider his contention that appellant was denied due process of law because one of the jurors was prejudiced to the extent of corrupting the panel.
As pointed out in our original opinion, the complaint that the juror was prejudiced against appellant and concealed this fact on his voir dire examination is not presented by formal bill of exception. We note further that the record does not show the voir dire examination of the jurors, and the only reference to the complaint that the juror was prejudiced appears in the motion for new trial and the evidence introduced in connection with the claim of jury misconduct.
Appellant’s counsel has presented a supplemental transcript including a bill of exception he has presented to the trial court since our original opinion was handed down. He presents affidavits in connection therewith which he contends show sufficient reason why the late filing thereof should be excused.
We have examined the tendered bill of exception and note that the trial judge has certified that had it been presented to him during the time allowed by statute it would have been approved with the qualification that the court found and determined that the juror in question was not a prejudiced juror.
We remain convinced that the record before us does not show that the juror was prejudiced against appellant and concealed such fact on his voir dire examination.
It would avail appellant nothing if we could consider his bill of exception with the trial court’s qualification. He would be bound by the certification that the juror was not a prejudiced juror.
We commend court appointed counsel for his earnest efforts in appellant’s defense, but are unable to agree that the conviction should be set aside.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.