Jones v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Hendricks v. Swenson

    456 F.2d 503 (8th Cir. 1972)   Cited 48 times
    Determining that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by the use of a videotape with the petitioner's picture and voice, which was freely and voluntarily given to police, ruling "this no more incriminates him than the taking of still pictures or blood or urine samples. Such procedure does not violate the Fifth Amendment."

    Since then other cases have so held. People v. Dabb, 32 Cal.2d 491, 197 P.2d 1 (1948) (court admitted into evidence a sound motion picture showing defendants reenacting the crime and admitting that they had committed the crime in the manner depicted); Paramore v. State, 229 So.2d 855 (Fla. 1969) (video tape of defendant's confession admitted into evidence); Grant v. State, 171 So.2d 361 (Fla. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1014, 86 S.Ct. 1933, 16 L.Ed.2d 1035 (1966) (color motion picture portraying a voluntary reenactment of the crime by defendant held admissible); Jones v. State, 151 Tex.Crim. 519, 209 S.W.2d 613 (1948) (motion picture of defendant charged with bribery held admissible). See also United States v. Moran, 194 F.2d 623 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 965, 72 S.Ct. 1058, 96 L.Ed. 1362 (1952) (motion picture without sound was admitted to show defendant's demeanor while testifying before a Senate subcommittee, the charge being that defendant had committed perjury before that subcommittee).

  2. Cooper v. State

    288 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. Crim. App. 1956)   Cited 32 times
    In Cooper v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 624, 288 S.W.2d 762, 770, on motion for rehearing, the Court wrote: 'The invocation of the defense of entrapment necessarily assumes the act charged was committed.

    Both of these cases recognize the defense of entrapment which this Court properly held was not raised by the evidence in Peery v. State, supra, and the Federal Court properly held was not raised by the evidence in Swallum v. U.S., or in U.S. v. Wray, but which is raised by appellant's testimony in the case before us. Sometime later, writing on rehearing in Jones v. State, 151 Tex.Crim. 519, 209 S.W.2d 613, wherein the conviction was for offering a bribe to the Sheriff of Dallas County, Judge Graves cited with approval the holding in Davis v. State, supra, to the effect that the inducement by the officer would not relieve the act of the accused of its criminality. Whether or not the defense of entrapment is available in a prosecution for bribery or offering to bribe an officer is not before us.

  3. Hubbard v. State

    770 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. App. 1989)   Cited 27 times
    Holding a defendant who rejects his attorney's advice on whether to testify preempts his attorney's trial strategy and may not complain of ineffective assistance on appeal

    Although this case provides some support for appellant's claim that the doctrine of entrapment precludes a conviction for bribery where the officer first solicits the bribe, later Court of Criminal Appeals cases questioned whether O'Brien represented an accurate statement of the law. Davis v. State, 70 Tex.Crim. 524, 158 S.W. 288 (1913); see also Jones v. State, 151 Tex.Crim. 519, 209 S.W.2d 613 (1948). Further, in 1973, the legislature codified the defense of entrapment in section 8.06 of the Texas Penal Code. That section has remained in effect, without amendment, until the present.

  4. State v. Strickland

    5 N.C. App. 338 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 6 times
    In State v. Strickland, 5 N.C. App. 338, 168 S.E.2d 697 (Ct.App. 1969), rev'd on other grounds 276 N.C. 253, 173 S.E.2d 129 (Sup.Ct. 1969), a motion picture of the accused taken after his arrest was held admissible to illustrate a police officer's testimony.

    Nevertheless, it appears that Oklahoma has taken an indefensible position which can find no support from other State or Federal Courts. Although not squarely in point with the case sub judice, we think the better and prevailing view of allowing motion pictures is show by the following cases where they were held properly admitted: Motion pictures of coordination tests of defendant charged with driving intoxicated, Lanford v. People, 159 Colo. 36, 409 P.2d 829, and Housewright v. State, 154 Tex.Crim. 101, 225 S.W.2d 417; motion pictures of the act where defendant was charged with oral copulation, People v. Bowley, 230 Cal.App.2d 269, 40 Cal.Rptr. 859; sound motion pictures of defendant making a confession, Commonwealth v. Roller, 100 Pa. Super. 125; and People v. Hayes, 21 Cal.App.2d 320, 71 P.2d 321; motion pictures of defendant in company with public official whom he was charged with attempting to bribe, Jones v. State, 151 Tex.Crim. 519, 209 S.W.2d 613; motion pictures of defendant testifying before Senate subcommittee in prosecution of defendant for perjury before the subcommittee, United States v. Moran., 194 F.2d 623, cert. denied 343 U.S. 965, 72 S.Ct. 1058, 96 L.Ed. 1362; motion picture of defendant re-enacting the crime, Grant v. State, Fla., 171 So.2d 361. The admission of motion pictures in evidence in civil actions, when properly authenticated and relevant, is now well established.