*1 Ascencion Luevanos v. State. 28, 1952. June
Rehearing Denied October Roy Judge Jackson, Hon. D.
Galvan McGovern, and Galvan and Jr. Robert J. Galvan Hugh McGovern, Jr., Paso, J. appellant. El William E. Clayton, Attorney, Fant, District Jack N. First Attorney, Assistant District Ellington, Owen H. Assistant Attorney, Paso, District George El Blackburn, P. State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.
BEAUCHAMP, Judge. penalty years peni- assessed a of ten in the
tentiary charge a sodomy. Appellant, year boy nineteen descent, old of Mexican lived making
in El Paso his home time, with an aunt. At the same he was enlisted in the city. service and stationed near the He visiting leave and aunt, the home of his who lived neighbor injured party whose mother testified in the case. victim, boy years age, five and a half per- was not testify mitted to gestae the state relied the res state- jury by related
ments of the child as the mother. It will revolting though necessary cir- not be to state the facts. Even nature, amply cumstantial the evidence is to sus- *2 that, jury In tain verdict. addition to a written confession the evidence, voluntary in was introduced the nature of which was challenged. Appellant gave in not testified his own behalf story by quite from different that revealed the con- written fession. Exception complains first Bill of of the failure the of permit appellant plead guilty
court to the to him before without jury. qualification places light bill a different guided this that in by to recited the and we bill the light qualification. bill in the of such by No error is shown the bill. Exception presents
Bill 2 of a claim that the evidence is insufficient. We cannot sustain this contention. Exception presents
Bill question of No. 3 requiring no con- sideration. Reliance for chiefly reversal of the case is had Bill of
Exception No. 4. testifying in his own behalf. applied suspended He had given testimony sentence and had support plea. of bim attorney this The district asked about being absent without official leave from Air Force. we the As qualification understand the approval embraced in the court’s bill, questions of the the several subject proper asked on the were cross-examination on any by matters testified him to in chief. If questions such harmful, were immaterial or they are not particularly pointed out the bill and we could not tell whether complaint particular is made question of one or as to the result group of a questions. of The bill is therefore indefinite. The certainly trial court was portion correct ain rulings, of his position we say are not in from complaint the bill that the any might question directed at which be inadmissible. The bill cannot be sustained. ground We find no judgment for reversal and the the of
trial court is affirmed. ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING. MORRISON, Judge.
625 voluntary nature original that the opinion, we stated In our challenged. this, in error. In were we not of the confession was opinion again the and are of reviewed evidence have We finding against appellant’s jury was warranted involuntary. evidence find the contention that the same was We support the verdict. again carefully reviewed formal bills haveWe 2, 3, Nos. and informal bills Nos. inclusive, all to cross-examination the accused con- directed cerning prior acts of misconduct. objection leveled cross-examination
The sole at this was that the matters there were immaterial. elicited *3 generality objections were, face, their ob- vious, they point any specific grounds whereby for fail testimony appropriated by jury upon any could be ma- terial being injury. objections issue the case or to insufficient, appraised the bills of light, and, appraised, when so no error is shown. Appellant’s rehearing motion is overruled. I. Price
G. v. State. October Gupton, Judge
Hon. T. M.