Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

411 S.W.2d 741

Castillo v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided February 1, 1967

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1967-02-01

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of burglary or robbery, or of a felony involving an act of violence with a firearm under the laws of the United States or of the State of Texas, or of any other state, and who has served a term in the penitentiary for such conviction, to have in his possession away from the premises upon which he lives any pistol, revolver or any other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Webb v. State

““The convictions, taken together, clearly evidence appellant’s failure to reform and were therefore not subject to his objection of being too remote.” 1”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Williams v. State

Relies on 166 Tex. Crim. 297 - Walker v. State · 91 Tex. Crim. 262 - Traylor v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1967-02-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 1983

2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

40196719701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

¶2 The offense is the felony offense of possession of a pistol away from the premises upon which he lives by an ex-convict; the punishment, two years.

¶3 The grounds of error urged by appellant by brief filed in the trial court will be discussed. He first contends that the court erred in failing to define the word “Premises” in his charge. Traylor v. State, 91 Tex.Cr.R. 262, 239 S.W. 982, is authority for the proposition that such word need not be defined in the charge.

¶4 He next contends that the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when the prosecutor questioned appellant about prior convictions which he contends were too remote. Though the questions were not propounded in the proper sequence, the court sustained the objections to the first questions, and it was later developed that there had been intervening convictions, which bring this case within the rule announced in Walker v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 297, 312 S.W.2d 666, where we said, “The convictions, taken together, clearly evidence appellant’s failure to reform and were therefore not subject to his objection of being too remote.”

¶5 His last contention is that the statute (Article 489c, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.) under which he was prosecuted is unconstitutional. We find no merit in this contention. See Long v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 177, 339 S.W.2d 21S.

¶6 Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

/411/sw2d/741 · .json · Public domain