Court Opinion

ID: 9773496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:47:42.298671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:54.440069
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing
WOODLEY, Judge.
*269Appellant directs our attention to his motion for instructed verdict wherein he insisted that the state had failed to prove venue.
We have again examined the record and find that the venue was sufficiently established. The prosecutrix described the place where she first saw appellant as being “on Stanwick Drive.” She testified that there was a larger and better known street there which was Telephone Road; that appellant’s car was on Stanwick Drive about the middle of the block; that he was still there when the witnesses Reynolds and Lemmon came up and he started his car, turned toward Telephone Road, then to his right.
Lemmon testified that he saw appellant “just to the west of Telephone Road on the intersection of Telephone Road and a gravel street” which he thought was either Westover or Stan-wick; that appellant was on the side road off Telephone Road, the car facing away from Telephone Road; that he saw appellant’s genitals exposed and saw the prosecutrix walking away from the man and the car at one and the same time; that after passing, he and his companion returned to that intersection; that he later saw the Cadillac car parked on a side street facing Telephone Road and saw the prosecutrix walking away from Telephone Road toward the car; that the occupant of the car appeared to be getting in or about to step out of the car; and that he “took off at a rapid rate as we came up behind him.” He later gave the following testimony.
“Q. The intersection that you described out there on Telephone Road, Mr. Lemmon, is that place here in Harris County, Texas? A. Yes, it is.”
This testimony we find sufficient to establish venue of the case in Harris County.
Appellant again urges that the ruling of the trial judge in excluding the picture of his Cadillac car deprived him of material testimony and should call for reversal.
It appears to be appellant’s theory that the pictures were admissible for the purpose of showing the impossibility of prosecutrix’ testimony that he was “sitting on the back of the seat” —the front seat of his Cadillac — when he exposed himself to her.
*270If this testimony is to be construed literally to mean that appellant was seated in a normal upright 'position on the back of the front seat of an automobile which has, as the evidence shows, a hard top, it is apparent that no photograph or testimony as to measurement would be required to show that the witness was mistaken. We think, however, that the portion of appellant’s confession quoted in our original opinion and his testimony explain and are not inconsistent with the little girl’s description of his position in the car when she saw his sexual parts.
Appellant testified that he stopped his car on Stanwick off Telephone Road; that he “reached back over the seat to get the towel off the floor board,” and “when I was coming back up over the seat, I saw the little girl coming along the side of the street.....The only motion I made was to try to cover myself up until I got back down into the seat.....”
We remain convinced that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the appeal was properly disposed of on original submission.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.