Court Opinion

ID: 9775609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:04:53.226881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:29.408644
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge
(dissenting).
On original submission this cause was reversed because the trial court admitted evidence of an extraneous offense. The opinion concluded that there was no defensive theory raised. The State’s motion for rehearing has been overruled.
The record reflects that a white man wearing a mask and a black man entered the home of Keith McCrary, a manager of a Gibson’s Store in San Antonio. All of the members of the family who were present were rounded up and held hostage by the masked man. The black man [appellant] took the family car and went to the Gibson’s Store managed by McCrary. Appellant told McCrary that he needed to talk to him. They went to the office where appellant took McCrary’s gun. B. G. Fulton, working as a security officer, was called to the office. A woman employee came to the office. In a telephone conversation with the man at the McCrary home, Fulton learned that the family was being held hostage.
Appellant, who had threatened Mc-Crary’s family, took him and had him empty the cash registers in the store. After taking approximately $5,000, appellant left.
Sue McCrary, wife of Keith McCrary, testified that a masked white man and a black man came to their house. She related what occurred while they were at the house. She gave no testimony about the identification of either.
Sandra McCrary, a seventh grade student, testified that she saw appellant in her brother’s room. Appellant pulled a gun and ordered her into the hall and had her write their telephone number on a piece of paper. He took the keys of her mother’s car and left.
B. G. Fulton testified that he was a San Antonio policeman on vacation at the time working as a security officer at Gibson’s. He related that it was the appellant who held a gun on the group in the office of the store. He related the threats that appellant had made and testified about the conversation on the telephone at the Mc-Crary home.
Martha Boothe, a cashier, testified that appellant accompanied by McCrary took money from twelve of the cash registers in the store.
Detective Tefteller related how the lineup was conducted.
To see if the question of identity was raised, we will look to the cross-examination of the witnesses.
A portion of the State’s brief on motion for rehearing written by Alan E. Battaglia, Assistant District Attorney, is adopted as a part of this dissent. It is as follows:
“The first witness for the State to be cross-examined was Keith McCrary. Counsel for Appellant almost immediately began to challenge the identification of Appellant by Keith McCrary suggesting it may have been tainted. The trial court initially 'overruled defense counsel’s request for a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine if the identification had been tainted. Later, following an objection to hearsay evidence, the jury was removed and a hearing conducted outside their presence. During this hearing, the trial court permitted Appellant’s counsel to question Keith McCrary concerning his identification of Appellant. The Court found that Keith McCrary’s identification of Appellant was not tainted.
*896“On cross-examination, both outside the presence of the jury and again in the jury’s presence, Keith McCrary testified that the individual who robbed him had a moustache and was not wearing glasses.
“Officer Fulton testified on cross-examination that the alleged robber had a mous-tache but did not wear glasses.
“Both Sue and Sandra McCrary stated on cross-examination that the alleged robber had a moustache but that the robber was wearing some type of glasses.
“Further cross-examination of Sue Mc-Crary elicited the fact that she had identified a man other than Appellant at the police line-up. While on cross-examination she could not positively identify Appellant as one of the alleged robbers.
“The witness, Martha Boothe, stated on cross-examination that the alleged robber was not wearing glasses and further that he had no moustache but was in fact, clean-shaven. This contradicted the testimony of every other witness who stated the alleged robber had a moustache.
“Cross-examination of Officer Fulton, Martha Boothe and Sandra McCrary brought out that the alleged robber had long sideburns. Officer Fulton admitted on cross-examination that when he viewed Appellant’s mug shot and viewed Appellant in the line-up, he saw no long sideburns on Appellant.
“The cross-examination of Detective Tefteller was also centered around identity. In response to cross-examination, it was elicited from Tefteller that of the witnesses to the robbery who viewed the line-up, three identified Appellant, two identified no one and two identified a man named William Taylor.
“The manner in which cross-examination of the State’s witnesses was conducted was penetrating and extensive. Most importantly, cross-examination centered around identity wherein every detail concerning the description of the alleged robber given by the witnesses was exhaustingly probed. Cross-examination included the use of the written statements given prior to trial by the witnesses in challenging identity.
“At the end of the State’s direct case the trial court and the jury had before them the following unexplained discrepancies elicited as a result of cross-examination :
“A.) Two witnesses stated the robber wore glasses. (Mrs. McCrary and Sandra McCrary).
“B.) Three witnesses said the robber was not wearing glasses (Mrs. McCrary, Officer Fulton and Martha Boothe).
“C.) All the witnesses, except Martha Boothe, stated the robber had a moustache. Martha Boothe stated that the robber had no moustache and was clean-shaven.
“D.) Some of the witnesses stated the robber had long sideburns. No long sideburns were characteristic of Appellant as reflected by his mug shot and his presence in the line-up.
“E.) Mrs. McCrary identified another individual in the line-up as the robber and could not identify Appellant at trial as being the robber.
“F.) Tefteller’s testimony on cross-examination elicited the fact that of all the witnesses to the robbery at the line-up, three or four could not identify Appellant as the individual who committed the robbery.
“G.) Out of the three or four witnesses who could not identify Appellant at the line-up, only Mrs. McCrary was present at the trial.1 ”
*897When a witness testifies to an alibi for an accused, this is testimony to the effect that the witnesses were mistaken in their identification of the defendant. This Court recognized that in Ransom v. State, 503 S.W.2d 810 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). See Owens v. State, 450 S.W.2d 324 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), and Albrecht v. State, 486 S.W.2d 97 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), which sets out guidelines for the introduction of extraneous offenses. No. (6) permits their introduction “to refute a defensive theory raised by the accused.”
The whole defense or issue of appellant in the present case was identification on the part of practically all of the witnesses. This raised the issue more directly than the defense of alibi.
The trial court stated that the question of identity had been raised even though alibi was not mentioned.
The court then allowed proof that at approximately 9:30 p. m., April 29, 1972, appellant and a masked white man went to the home of Talmadge Simmons, the manager of a Handy Andy Store in the Oak Park Center. They knocked on the door and stated that they had had car trouble and wanted to use the telephone. Appellant and the other man both had pistols. Appellant held the family at bay while the masked man searched the house. The two men took money and some jewelry from the people at the house.
Appellant, still armed, took Simmons and his car to the Handy Andy Store and made him take some $12,000 from the store. In the meantime the white man with the mask held the family at gun point. After getting the money appellant took Simmons home and locked him up with the rest of the family in the master bedroom. Both of the robbers then left. Many of the circumstances in both robberies were the same.
The witnesses to this transaction were cross-examined about their testimony identifying appellant. Appellant moved to strike the testimony of the witnesses to the second transaction because:
“It denies the Defendant the right to be confronted by his accusers in that the Defendant is limited in his cross-examination of the complaining witness as to identity.”
Identity being in issue, the trial court did not err in permitting proof of the facts of the robbery of Simmons at the Handy Andy Store.
The State’s motion for rehearing should be granted and the judgment affirmed.
ONION, P. J., joins in this dissent.

. “That the entire objective of the cross-examination of the State’s witnesses was to raise the issue of identity finds further support in the closing remarks made by the attorneys for Appellant. Mr. Estefan stated to the jury:
“ ‘The only issue in the case, then, is whether or not Charles Redd is the man that *897committed the crime .... Has the State proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt, as is outlined in the charge, that Charles Redd and no other man is the person that committed this crime? ’
“Mr. Estefan then directed the jury’s attention to the discrepancy as to whether or not the alleged robber wore glasses. Next, he discussed the question of the sideburns. Then Mr. Estefan re-emphasized the mis-identification of Mrs. McCrary. Next he referred the jury to the fact that Mrs. Boothe stated the robber did not have a moustache and the fact that another witness to the line-up, Kaplan, also identified another individual in the line-up as the robber. After pointing to all the discrepancies raised through cross-examination Mr. Es-tefan stated:
“ ‘ . . . And, that is what this case is all about, ladies and gentlemen.
“ ‘This unfortunate man here happens to look more like the robber than any other picture or any other person in a line-up that was shown to the witnesses in this case and that is what we are doing here today.’
“Appellant’s counsel, Mr. Evans told the jury that, with the discrepancies, all that existed was an ‘honest misidentification’. He concluded by stating:
“ ‘I think there is all kinds of doubt in this case as to whether or not he is the man that committed the robbery.’ ”
Defense counsel also argued that Officer Fulton had pressure on him to make a ease, but that he was honestly mistaken. It was also argued appellant was incapable of growing sideburns.