From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vargas v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Jun 25, 1969
442 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In Vargas, although the court did not set out the State's line of questioning, it relied on Washburn, concluding the proceeding was prejudicial.

Summary of this case from Smith v. State
See 5 Summaries

Opinion

No. 41850.

June 25, 1969.

Appeal from the 79th Judicial District Court of Jim Wells County, C. W. Laughlin, J.

Nago L. Alaniz, San Diego, R. E. Lopez, Jr., Alice, for appellant.

Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is burglary, the punishment, four years.

At appellant's trial, the State called a co-indictee who had previously been convicted for the burglary with which appellant was charged. The co-indictee claimed the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination throughout examination by the prosecutor and even under threat of contempt. Upon the witness' first refusal to answer a question, the prosecutor said: 'This man has no right to refuse to testify on the grounds of incrimination. He's already been convicted of the offense for which he is to be questioned.' Voir dire examination later developed that the prosecutor had spoken with the witness the previous day in jail and that when the prosecutor told the witness he was going to be called, the witness made no response.

Appellant has predicated error upon the state's calling of this co-indictee as a state witness; and we agree with such contention. The following quotation from Washburn v. State, 164 Tex.Crim. R., 299 S.W.2d 706, is determinative of this appeal:

"Unless the witness has agreed to turn state's evidence, the prosecution ought not to place him on the stand; to do so and wring from him a refusal to testify, affording to the jury an opportunity to consider the refusal as a circumstance of guilt, has been said to be 'certainly prejudicial."

The prosecutor's statement that appellant's co-indictee had been convicted for the same offense prior to the trial was also reversible error. Barton v. State, 172 Tex.Crim. R., 361 S.W.2d 716.

For the errors pointed out, the conviction is reversed and the cause remanded.

WOODLEY, P.J., not participating.

Summaries of

Vargas v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Jun 25, 1969
442 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969)

In Vargas, although the court did not set out the State's line of questioning, it relied on Washburn, concluding the proceeding was prejudicial.

Summary of this case from Smith v. State

In Vargas, the court held it was prejudicial error to call a co-indictee to the stand knowing he would invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Summary of this case from Smith v. State

In Vargas, although the court did not set out the State's line of questioning, it relied on Washburn concluding the proceeding was prejudicial.

Summary of this case from Perez v. State

In Vargas, the court held it was error to call a convicted co-indictee to the stand knowing he would invoke his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Summary of this case from Perez v. State

In State v. Vargas, 265 A.2d 345 (Connecticut 1969), the court concluded that the challenge to a building code ordinance that had been in existence fourteen years was insufficient due to the lapse of time and the fact that its legality had never been challenged.

Summary of this case from Attorney General Opinion No
Case details for

Vargas v. State

Case Details

Full title:Martin VARGAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Jun 25, 1969

Citations

442 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969)

Citing Cases

Perez v. State

See id. at 177 n. 4 (it could have been error had the State asked witness a series of damaging questions in…

Smith v. State

Smith argues that James' invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege in the presence of the jury irreversibly…

13 Citing Cases