From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriquez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Nov 16, 1960
340 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960)

Opinion

No. 32410.

November 16, 1960.

Appeal from the 70th Judicial District Court, Ector County, Paul McCollum, J.

Murray J. Howze, Monahans, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State


The offense is indecent exposure; the punishment, 7 years.

The indictment charged that appellant exposed his private parts to Jo Ann Cabarubio, a person under the age of 16 years.

In making out its case in chief, the State was permitted to prove, over the objection of appellant, that approximately a year prior to the date charged int eh indictment one Lupe Valez, who was not present at the time of the exposure to Jo Ann, had gone to a picture show with ther sister and as they entered the balcony appellant had sais, "Come here," to them and had there exposed his private parts. The testimony concerning this extraneous offense was not limited in the charge.

Young v. State, 159 Tex.Crim. R., 261 S.W.2d 836, is authority for the reversal of this conviction. There we held it reversible error for the State to prove that the accused had committed acts of sodomy upon two different boys from the one charged in the indictment at a different time and place, said boys not being present at the time of the offense charged.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.


Summaries of

Rodriquez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Nov 16, 1960
340 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960)
Case details for

Rodriquez v. State

Case Details

Full title:Amelio RODRIQUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Nov 16, 1960

Citations

340 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960)
170 Tex. Crim. 275

Citing Cases

Smith v. State

"No reason exists why the rule should not apply to a sodomy, case such as the one before us where the victim…

Mckenzie v. State

Questions were propounded to appellant and his witness Bradford concerning a threat made by appellant's…