Deal v. StateDeal v. State
*1 Dеal v. The State. 1925] Many is in accord cases cited the text which coat Ev., Ed., Underhill’s Crim. 3d 101. The introduction § in arriv- present evidence in the was to aid the сase calculated very at the truth killing and the of the manner of 287, parties. 321, case, Dozier’s 199-S. W. light clothing furnishes an illustration where threw no deceased whatever on the manner of the case deceased homicide. shot in just hair, the back of edge the neck below the coming just bullet оut in jaw. front under the Left body. other wound on the through The bullet did pass clothing of apparent deceased. It is tender introduction in evidence of the killing overcoat worn him at the time entirely ivas immaterial, light upon threw no transaction what- ever, and was offered for an improper purpose.
Believing proper disposition was upon original made of the case rehearing submission the motion for is overruled. 1925.
MARCH, Burette Deаl v. The State. January 7, 1925. 1925. 11,
Motion file second denied March 1925. —Manufacturing Intoxicating Liquor Testify —Failure —Ref- erence to. shown, Where it is at- the trial the district torney, presence let answer of counsel for . said in “If he wants to the defendant on the exception affirmatively him be bill of does not triаl, show that facts did not on is no presented no error is to this court for review. —Same—AccompliceTestimony Charge of Court. — Camp- While the bеll case Tex. has been criticised as every ease, respects, and permit in the instant case does not determine whether this given, revеrsible error.
OST BEHEARIIÍG. of Facts —Not Considered. 3.—Same—Statement approved Judge, will not be facts that the trial considered, county, was in the fact thаt another is no ex- for the failure to secure his cuse 99 Tex. Crim.—25. {March, Criminal —Same—Jury—Quashing Exception. Panel —Bill of overruled, Where a motion and nо bill of ex- *2 ception time, of to the court is the truth filed within term and facts, nothing pre- the matters shown is averred are not a statement this In the of such thе correct- sented to court for review. absence court in such motion is sustained. the action of the lower —Same—Application for for Leave to File Second Motion —Re- fused. Appellant presents application for re- a second motion an for leave to file hearing, which is refused. facts is not sufficient. to the County. below Tried of Eastland Appeal from District Court Judge. Hill, TIou. E. A. before the intoxicating liquor, mаnufacturing for Appeal from conviction year penitentiary. one in the penalty, opinion case. states the Cisco, appellant. for Gearley,
J. Lee Attorney, Morris, Assistant Garrard, and Grover C. Tom Attorney, for the Judge. Presiding MORROW, is the manufacture offense peni- intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement tentiary year. one for upon no of the heard the trial.
There is 2 during the Exceptions Bill of No. from We understand jury, -trial, counsеl, presence of the of the said: him let "If he wants to the defendant on (cid:127) put on.” appellant’s addressing counsel wás while the This occurred аdmissibility of certain touch- with reference court of which State of the the admission declarations objected to the remark, court instructed opposed. anything We fail find jury disregard it. the bill Complaint not become a witness. of the ing that the did cannot be sustained when it is of the accused tо testify. Quinney State, accused did not v. the bill that the shown 882; Rep. State, 216 Tillman 225 Rep. S. W. v. 86 Texas Crim. State, 165; Rep. 226 W. v. S. Rep.W. Gonzales S. witness an Prickett was The cоurt instructéd necessity touching law accomplice, informed the selected corroboration witness. Campbell’s case, Texas is Crim. like that respects charge has criticised This 1925\ Deal v. The State. every State, Texas See case. Anderson given case 352, (motion rehearing) (cid:127) Whether in a
Crim. give an or the failure to accurate mentioned use were depend upon the work a would one would reversal knowledge jury. thаt was Without court is not to determine that refusing on the sub- mentioned accomplice testimony, See ject of harmful error committed. Rep. 31; Stаte, Watson v. State, Abbott v. Rep. 583. refusing acquit error shown to instruct the evidence, may appellant. accomplice, aside from that оf the ample. have been presumption indulged favor the evidence sufficient to *3 verdict.
the
The is affirmed.
Affirmed. ON MOTION POE EEHEARING. LATTIMORE, Judge. Appellant urges that the remarks of attorney during a discussion parties between counsel for the respecting
and the court testimony, admission of certain the—to that if “He effect wants to thе defendant on the stand we will let him a be to the failure reference of the defendant ought by to to which be held us reversible error. bill appеars the record shows that progressing while the trial was appellant's attorney making court, he referred what said, to had in reply defendant tо attorney complained made remark appears of. This to an objection part the nature of on the of State’s counsel by to counsel as to what said, he had being nothing justify appellant’s before the court to counsel in his had reference. not closed and it was not then known to counsel, apparently, whether the accused would be a wit- or not. We do not think it violative rules. Appellant has filed in this recоrd a agreed statement of facts to by both counsel for the State and defendant, within the time filing allowed for herein, statement of facts and аsks tous compel issue a writ certiorari perfection of this record. In as much the statement of facts approved by judge, propеrly even if it should be us before insertion in record, we could not consider it. In order call upon eo pass upon facts, a statement of it must bеar the approval of judge. 99 Texas Criminal [March not also asks matter which us to consider another up- properly us. motion was made tо on facts therein matters so averred stated. The truth of the bill of ex- appear made to of facts or a either ceptions filed tеrm In the absence of some such time. ing we lower court uphold must correctness- said motion.
Being agree unable to with contention the motion rehearing will be overruled.
ON APPLICATION POR LEAVE PILE REHEARING. TO SECOND POR MOTION LATTIMORE, regret ap- grant can We plication rehearing. leave to file second motion for diligence facts, dеpositing is not- sufficient. of said agreed attorney after same had been the district appellant’s counsel, required, with the district clerk within the time approval but without the judge, justify of the district us would not consideration, ordering said statement the issuance of perfect certiorari to unless there had more appears. than here mere fact that the district judge adjourning county ill, was in an justify appellant would not making apparently However, procure effort his might this connection we observe that we have examined the state- ment facts and if same change werе before us it would not our *4 judgment of affirmance.
Leave to file second motion for is denied.
Denied. George Hurd March state Forgery—V ariance —Fatal.
1.— according forgery forged instrument an indictment set out the Whеre tenor, being signed introduced “Oddis Rhoods” and instrument its appears upon signed by “Oldis Roods” in evidence Rhodes,” forged party’s alleged we do not was “Odis name to have been correspondence requirements proof of the law as think this meets tenor, according made oi its out instrument set between the same.