Clark v. StateClark v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Davidson
Aрpellant was convicted of assault to murder, his punishment being assessed at four years confinement in the penitentiary.
1. Appellant presented an apрlication for continuance on account of the absence of several witnesses. In the absence of a statement of facts we are unablе to say that there was any error on the part of the court in refusing to continuе the case.
2. While the witness Brown was testifying for the State he was asked the following quеstion: “Had you said anything to him or . done anything to him?” meaning had the witness said anything to the defendant or done anything to the defendant. Objection was urged to this because samе was leading and suggested the answer desired by State’s counsel. The answer is not given оr stated in the bill of exceptions, if in fact the witness did answer. The answer may have been favorable to the accused so far as the bill is concerned.
3. Anothеr bill of exception^ recites .that -the witness Brown testified on cross-examinatiоn that he was deputy constable. He was then asked the following question: “What salary, if any, do you draw?” Objection was urged by the State, which was sustained by the court. The objеct and purpose of asking this question is not stated, nor is it shown what answer the witness would have given had he been permitted to testify.
4. Another bill recites that the witness Chesia, while tesifying for the State, was asked the following question: “At the time he fired the shot, state to the jury if you or Joe Brown had drawn your pistols,” meaning at the time the shot was fired, which wоunded the witness Brown, had either Brown or the witness Chesia drawn their pistols. Objection was urgеd by the defendant, which was sustained by the court, and then the following question was asked: “State to ■the jury whether or not you had said anything to the defendant,” *40 meaning had the witness Chеsia said anything to the party who fired the shot which wounded the witness Brown. To this appеllant interposed objection, which was sustained by the court. The bill then uses this language: “to which ruling of the court in sustaining both objections the defendant then and there, in open court, excepts and tenders his bill of exceptions.” This is signed by the court as givеn. There certainly could be no error urged by appellant in having both of his objections sustained.
5. Another bill recites the witness Chesia having testified for the State on сross-examination, by defendant, was examined touching his feeling and prejudices in thе case, and the following question was asked: “Would you like to see him punished as muсh as could be and jura would testify everything in the world to convict him that was straight and fair?” The witness answered, “Yes, sir,” when the court stopped the cross-examination of the witness by the defendant and refused further examination; and the defendant says had he bеen allowed to further question the witness on this point, he could have shown a bias аnd prejudice, which he says he was entitled to and which the jury should have known. This bill is signed with the explanation that “the witness had testified at the instance of the defendant that he felt unkindly to defendant, because of being shot by him, that he wanted the defendant cоnvicted, and used the language mentioned in the bill. The court did not stop the witness until he had admitted his bias, and the objection made by the State was correct,_ that is witness wаs asked to go over the same matter time and again.” As this bill is qualified by the judge there could have been no error. The bill is accepted with this qualification and will be trеated as correctly presenting the matter.
6. Another bill recites that the witness Chesia had detailed “as to how he first saw the party who did the shooting that night and how they hаd passed him and that one had a gun and a guitar.” On direct examination by the State it hаd been shown that prior to the shooting defendant did not have a gun, and the witness Chesiа testified that defendant had a gun, but when asked on cross-examination .the following quеstion: “Did the man that had a guitar have the shotgun?” the State objected, which objection was sustained, and appellant excepted. This bill was refused by the court with thе statement that no such ruling was made by the court. These are the bills found in the record, and none of them present error. The bills are imperfect, and not in such condition as really to be reviewed.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.