*1 one, complains exception By number bill closing Attorney in his by District remarks made certain length in out at jury. are set argument The remarks general objection interposed to said Appellant the bill. proper. Those unquestionably remarks, of which some specifically objected to. improper to have been deemed Gray exception v. is insufficient. See Hence bill 518; (2d), 481; McVicker v. Rep., 5 S. W. 109 Texas Crim. Furthermore, Rep., 598; 166. 100 Texas Crim. argument proper reply to the to have been the remarks seem by appel request was made appellant, and no counsel disregard any specific jury an instruction to lant part thereof. exception complained number remarks
The proper upon to have been a evidence seem were based two Consequently legitimate no error deduction therefrom. is shown. complains of certain exception number three also attorney. qualified by bill is made the district
remarks qualified fails to show error. by trial court and as complained by appellant matters All by are deemed to be without merit. us arid considered judgment is affirmed. The Appeals foregoing opinion of the has Commission The Judges Appeals Court Criminal examined approved the Court. Ringer Ringer and B. C. State.
John December Delivered 1938. No. 20054. Appeal to Reinstate June 1939. Motion On *2 opinion the case. states *3 Ballinger, Petty, Dickey of and both Frank C. Paul appellants. Austin, Attorney,
Lloyd Davidson, for the State. W. State’s Judge. GRAVES, County, felony a in Irion and
Appellants were convicted appeal therefrom. on an are in this Court in that it does recite appeal is defective bond felony. appellants convicted of We have been that Hagler, (2d) parte 28 550: “It is S. W. held Ex heretofore statute, that essential, stated the bond be under felony. of a Articles 817 and convicted had been the accused 314, State, P.; R. 4 818, 109 Texas Cr. S. W. Read v. C. C. (2d) 91 and see Teel v. S. (2d) 547.” Also W. there cited. cases dismissed, appellants granted fifteen appeal will This be proper appeal to file a days this date which bond. from Appeal dismissed. APPEAL. MOTION TO REINSTATE
ON Judge. GRAVES, on heretofore dismissed account appeal bond, days fifteen in order with allowed a defective filed, bond, has now been and we proper bond file a upon its the case merits. proceed to consider
will receiving concealing cer- Appellants were convicted
245 years penalty of four sheep, were awarded a tain stolen penitentiary. in the state each exceptions
Appellants’ relates to the fact that No. 1 bill of in Runnels appellants were indicted this same offense finding indictment, County prior and while it is this' legally taking jurisdiction first true court thereof, jurisdiction offense continues to have exclusive voluntarily jurisdiction surrendered a dismissal can be thereof, proceed try court can then such later prior jurisdiction. offender after the court has surrendered its although followed, complained procedure seems to Such be in this error therein. bill. see no We Bill No. 2 error. It is held in the reflects no case Wilson Rep. that where the defense S. W. in a ownership property accusation criminal accused, the stolen thefts, competent prove it is “to posses- or the property alleged of other at sion stolen or about the time affecting alleged property intent with which the stolen was proof objected taken.” The rule, comes within such we think, and the bill is overruled. incomplete, 3 is and does not show given testimony therein what was the witness. We do not know from testimony objectionable such bill whether such not. or Hence we overrule this bill. complains because the witness Abe
Mayer testify was allowed to there were about 600 head *4 sheep pasture County in a certain in Runnels where Mr. alleged sheep, Ault recovered the 43 appellants stolen the contention of
being jury might that the infer from such state- sheep sheep. that ment appellant all 600 of such were stolen noteWe that Ringer John testified that there about one pasture, sheep in thousand such and we no see error in allow- testimony Mayer. ing general the of Mr. To the same effect ruling 5,No. and our is the that respect is same as in bill to No. 4. bill 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, No.
Bills 11 and 12 can be together they alleged all relate to treated as the same basic general round-up was It seems that there error. of sheep on control, persons appellants’ many premises under recovered they had sheep them, that claimed been stolen from such being possession in alleged sheep appellants the stolen who honestly they acquired by purchase. thereto had title claimed 217, Rep. is case, 223 S. W. quoted Wilson above pos- property in the proposition that other authority the the at or about had stolen appellant, which been session to combat in order time, admissible ais circumstance same to relate All the above bills purchase. honest of an the claim alleged sheep by parties stolen and claim identification the case, think and we in this prosecuting witness than the testimony was admissible. asking the to the State 13 relates No. twenty-three Ringer not if there were about appellant John sheep his head of from about 150 off men who carried different people claimed such meaning thereby number that such pen, Upon court them. the trial from sheep stolen attorneys, by appellants’ he overruling objection thereto thereby meaning sheep,” 200 head “I think about answered: away sheep pen from many taken his that that there in think such is admissible alleged We by owners thereof. 7,6, testimony complained of in bills Nos. the with connection referring by sheep 12, the reclaimed 9, 10, 8, 11 and is in bills. To the same effect said mentioned witnesses the overruled; also to the same effect is it is also bill thereon. the same and we rule fraught difficulties. The with exceptions No. is Ringer the John complaint is that while of its basis special prosecutor the if asked was on the stand he was convicted of the offense of he had been not a fact was concealing sheep in the District Court of receiving stolen Texas, question answered the witness County, which Nolan appellants’ objection affirmative, of the attor- over being appeal court, on this conviction neys that such objection final conviction. time a not at such was same heeded, we fear the trial court committed have been should objection. A failing conviction for an to sustain in error appeal, final until has offense, of an same the event court, appellate upon and it was well finally acted asking question attorney this this Nolan known appellate time on at that this County conviction asking ques- held that such a heretofore court. We Judge was reversible error. circumstances similar under tion case, (2d) 1024: the Ward said Christian Judge Jennings language Ramsey in quote “We *5 587, 588, R. as follows: Texas Cr. 55 “ and is shown the appears, record as a it case ‘In this appealed the had been conviction fact, the
247 from, pending It then and the matter was this court. appeal suspended judgment, is settled that the and might rule, if it the the was in no sense final. be Whatever necessarily final, judgment had it would seem of conviction that, conviction, to where an had been follow case taken, fact of in another should not this conviction case be against rule, appellant. used If it not then if the the any right conviction, had State in manner once secured a or wrong, not, subject to whether reversal or and whether ulti- mately not, taken, reversed or until such action had befen the illegal jury, only conviction could be used the before discrediting defendant, purpose orig- the the but well as guilt. also, inal evidence his not the is law.’ See Cox v. 81 Texas Cr. R. 138.” S. W. 19, 20, practically Bills 21 and 22 to repe- Nos. seem be just upon, governed tition of bill No. 18 above written and are by what said relative to bill No. 18. charge Bill No. 23 to the relates trial court’s refusal to the
jury that the Mexican witness Jesus Moreno was an accom- plice charged to the offense. It seems that this Mexican was only sheep naught herder and had to do relative to these sheep except they brought to herd same after into shepherding, the herd that he was and impressed we are not with the fact of accompliceship. his repetition seems be but a appellants’
objections charge, to the court’s and also con- charge. tains this the court’s full There necessity was no bill; objections charge voluminous already these ap- peared record, occupied pages thereof, ten and its inclusion, together second charge, with the consumed sixteen pages. say further presses Suffice charge the trial court’s im- carefully us as drawn, and painstakingly manner, states law in a concise and does not seem to subject array objections be leveled at the same. On account of matter evidenced in 18, showing case, the convictions County Nolan judgment this reversed cause remanded.