Court Opinion

ID: 9654047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:04:00.190537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:05.347185
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
GRAVES, Presiding Judge.
Appellant contends that at the time he was first approached by Officer Roebuck, he was immediately placed under arrest and kept under arrest continuously until he was identified by the lit-*448tie girl as the person herein complained of. We cannot agree with the fact that appellant was under arrest until after he was identified by the child. It was shown that the officer testified that he had no warrant for him but did request the appellant to come to the police station, and that appellant drove his own truck to the police station. It was also shown that appellant dressed himself, went out, got in his automobile and drove to the police station for the purpose of clearing up any matters about which the little girl was complaining. It was shown further that appellant was not arrested until the little girl identified him and declared that he was the person who acted as is herein charged.
It is further contended that appellant was not sufficiently identified as such person who had exhibited himself to this child.
It is worthy of note herein that the identification does not depend solely upon the statement of the complaining witness. Mrs. Greer also testified that she saw the side face of the man who had been in conversation with the little girl and also saw his truck that he was driving, and that appellant was the man who was in that truck and drove it away, as the little girl left him. The truck was also identified by her as having the words “Longview, Texas,” lettered on its side.
It is true that appellant offered an alibi in this matter which was submitted to the jury under a proper charge, and they decided that issue against him. We see no reason why we should disturb their verdict herein.
The motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.