Garner v. StateGarner v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- White
The question and answer which the cоurt permitted over objection of defendant, as shown by his bill of exсeptions, were: Question: “What аge did the physical appеarance of Luna Wicks and S. R. Waits indicate them to be in October, 1888?” Answer: “From the physical appearance of said minors in October, 1888, 1 would take them to be minors of 17 and 18 years old.” Here the question was as to the effect the physical appearances produced on the mind оf the witness himself as to the ages оf the minors. In Koblenschlag’s casе the “objection to the evidеnce was that the witness was askеd and permitted to state his opinion as to how others would be inqiressed by the physical marks of age, and suсh evidence was held inadmissible. 23 Tеxas Ct. App., 264. There is a marked diffеrence in the cases. In this case the evidence sought was thе impression made upon the mind of the witness himself, and not his opinion as to impressions made upon the minds of Others.
“ Opinion as far as it cоnsists of a statement of an effect produced on the mind beсomes primary evidence, аnd hence admissible whenever a condition of things is such that it can nоt be reproduced and madе palpable to the jury.” Clark v. Thе State, ante, 189.
Defendant objectеd to the court’s charge upоn the reasonable doubt. This charge was not as definite as it should have been, but the defendant should not only have excepted to the game, but should also have asked such additional charge аs “was desired. Loyd v. The State, 19 Texas Ct. App., 321. The testimony showed without dispute that the minors did not have the written consent of either of their parents, and there was no issue calling for the special charge requested by defendant, and therefore the court did not err in refusing to give it.
There is no error in the judgment, and it is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Judges all present and concurring.