Ticer v. State
313 S.W.2d 301
Tex. Crim. App.
1958
Check Treatment

*1 WOODLEY, Judge. custody discharge from

Appellant sought who, Tulia City police officers capias pro fine him on appears, held He corporation court. out of

issued county court

appeals from an order remanding him hearing after

entered

custody. tried upon he was complaint in evidence

and convicted excluded. hearing but was

appellant at the excep- part of the as a appears

It com- that it was which certifies appel- against

plaint which the based. court was corporation

lant but does not signed complaint is been sworn to.

appear have complaint cannot be the

An unsworn cor- prosecution criminal

basis rendered judgment

poration court is void.

thereon remanding appellant to dis- is ordered

custody and he is reversed

charged. TICER, Appellant,

N.C. STATE of of Criminal

March *2 Allison, Levelland, jury the Allison, & Steele the defendant made a motion for mistrial; appellant. out sets the motion and recites that it was overruled and the defendant ex- Lubbock, Gilkerson, Atty., George Dist. cepted. Atty., Floydada, Stapleton, Dist. B. John Austin, Atty., Douglas, State’s Leon B. and Containing only allegations of the for the State. appellant, not by verified as facts the trial judge, Exception Bill of presents No. 1 no BELCHER, Commissioner. Mayse reversible State, error. v. 156 Tex. Cr.R. 371; State, S.W.2d Cox v. murder; punishment, the offense is The 157 Tex.Cr.R. 474; Huskey 246 S.W.2d years. five State, 246 S.W.2d Spur, Dick- near in occurred killing 636; The Veasey State, Lubbock Coun- County. Trial inwas ens 255; Hanna 159 Tex. changed by the ty, having venue 570; Mercer v. own on his motion. Tex.Cr.App., Stephen v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 293 S.W.2d 789. of rejected appellant’s claim jury the to reduce and his effort self-defense Appellant’s second and remaining propo- by malice testi- killing murder without to sition argument. relates to just had informed that his wife Bill Exception of No. 4 sets out certain with her sexual relations deceased had that remarks State’s opening argu- jury also denied previous night. The the ment, portion and a of the closing argu- suspended application for sentence. his ment, objection and shows that from the State’s stand- viewed and motion for mistrial made at closing unjustified voluntary killing, point, show an argument. of on the deceased having advanced appellant complained remarks of were to the gun; de- followed the a loaded shot effect that the defendant had not offered away with the shot as he drove ceased any witness testify his reputation that as appellant; fired from had gun he wrested peaceful a and abiding law citizen was Spur, and on the of deceased streets at the good, and apparently not, he could and that shooting by finally and killed him overtook it “mighty significant” that cer- powered rifle high with a head him in the tain State witnesses had the courage to telescope sight. with a equipped testify that his any was bad “if ap- presented in propositions are Two mention is any suspended made of sentence pellant’s brief, relating first Bill in this case.” Exception 1.No. In Martin v. appellant ma- By proposition claims by appellant, prose- dire prejudicial error voir terial cutor, made a misstate- jurors, prospective examination of ment of the law when he said that the de- challenges for overruling of some of his suspended fendant was not entitled ato sen- cause. proved good reputa- tence unless he a tion. jury examination of The voir dire us,

panel .is not before ex- The Martin case does support ap- ception pellant’s contains certification claim of nowhere error. complained

by court that the matters arguments set out in the bill re- made the basis of the bill occurred. jury flect was told they could Exception Bill punishment read suspend As we sentence if the they merely during years. recites that the selection assessed did not exceed five control, ion placed

Appellant application. and Skinner has no application appellant’s We filing suggestion of an decline issue wit suspended A number overrule them. sentence. reputation as

nesses testified that his Appellant further is contends that there bad. peaceful abiding citizen law a conflict between Burnett v. not cross-examined on They were supra, cited in our *3 by the called and no character witness was opinion, prior Shipley our holding in defense. Tex.Cr.R. urges proper, for under we overrule both Bur It was these Taylor. nett and direct In attorney representing Shipley, the State to held that we showing question witness jury’s attention to evidence not be should defendant, and to ed concerning personal knowledge of the the bad specific part the testi- acts of purpose out the misconduct on the the accused but admissible. Burnett if he was asked heard of the same. re This rule has affirmed in many cases, including recent Adams v. 255 S. 127. W.2d but does any way conflict is affirmed. cases mentioned above. approved by Opinion the Court. Remaining properly convinced we disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s Rehearing Motion for On

motion rehearing is overruled. MORRISON, Presiding Judge. ap brief and forceful

In in error in our

pellant urges that we were exception bill of of his

disposition Skinner v. Tex. relies Skinner, In 880. trial exception recited that the bill TORBERT, Appellant, Lon A. trial motion for new overruled judge and without the defendant absence proof in opportunity offer an The STATE of giving . said, “The trial motion. We support of exception bill of approval this court’s Criminal certifi qualification constitutes a without April 16, of the lan of the correctness by him cate quoted.” guage bar, excep at the bill of In Dissenting Opinion May 28, 1958. for mistrial was a motion recites by the trial court overruled. approved trial

When just that and certified that

exception, he did not had occurred. He more

nothing allegations in the motion

certify that forth or the events set correct

were occurred. Nowhere had in fact

therein such ef a certificate to do find opin- our cases fect.