« FöregåendeFortsätt »
$ 417 (Tex.Cr. App.) Statements made by wit 8 510 (Ky.) At common law the rule that the nesses for the state to the county attorney at jury should not convict on the unsupported tesan ex parte hearing at which accused was not timony of an accomplice was one of practice, present are inadmissible to prove the offense and a conviction on such evidence could not be charged.-Liner v. State, 156 Š. W. 211. quashed as illegal; the better practice being for 8 417 (Tex.Cr. App.) In a prosecution of a ne
the judge to advise the jury to acquit unless gro for unlawfully carrying a weapon, evidence the accomplice's testimony be corroborated as to of a statement made by accused's brother that accused's participation.-Commonwealth v. Barhe was going to take a pistol away from a
ton, 156 S. W. 113. white man, made in accused's absence and in
Cr. Code Prac. § 241, prohibiting a convicthe absence of proof of conspiracy, was inad- tion upon the testimony of an accomplice unmissible.–Gibbs v. State, 156 S. W. 687.
less corroborated, construed with section 242, $8 419, 420 (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence that ap- requiring direction of an acquittal in the ab other told witness that he had given authority misdemeanors as well as to felonies.-id.
sence of necessary corroboration, applies to to sign a certain name to a check claimed to have been forged was not admissible in a prose testified as to the road traveled, the kind of
8510/2 (Tex.Cr. App.) Where an accomplice cution for forgery, being hearsay.-Davis v. State, 156 S. W. 1171.
vehicle and horses driven, etc., and said that
defendant had offered him a pistol, testimony of (G) Acts and Declarations of Conspirators the officer who arrested him that he had a 'pisand Codefendants.
tol was admissible as corroborative of the tes$ 4 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the facts in a timony of the accomplice.-Holmes v. State,
156 S. W. 1172. prosecution for kidnapping showed a conspiracy, the acts, words, and conduct of each and all larations made by him nor by testimony of an
An accomplice cannot be corroborated by decof the conspirators in furtherance of the common design and until the termination of the
other accomplice.-Id. conspiracy, and whether the person on trial 8 51! (Tex.Cr. App.) The testimony of an acwas actually present at all times or not, were complice may be corroborated by circumstanadmissible.-Nunez v. State, 156 S. W. 933. tial evidence.-Cole v. State, 156 S. W, 929.
$ 424 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where one jointly indicted with accused was first tried and convict
(K) Confessions. ed, statements made by him to third persons about the crime were inadmissible in behalf of out caution to the accused that it might be used
8 518 (Ark.) That a confession is made with. accused.-Castenara v. State, 156 S. W. 1180.
against him does not render it incompetent un(H) Documentary Evidence and Exclusion 156 S. W. 427.
less invalidated by statute.-Greenwood v. State, of Parol Evidence Thereby. $ 429 (Tex.Cr. App.) Under Rev. Civ. St. 1911,
$ 519 (Ark.) A confession made without art. 1748, authorizing county clerks to appoint threat of injury or promise of reward or addeputies, articles 368743713, authorizing the in- vantage, and in the absence of any influence troduction of copies of such deputation in evi- swerving accused from the truth, is voluntary. dence, and article 2287 and articles 9-14, de-1-Greenwood v. State, 156 S. W. 427. claring a justice of the peace to be an ex officio questions to the accused either by an officer or
A confession is admissible, though elicited by notary public, with powers to administer oaths by a private person, and even though the form and take affidavits, a record showing an ap- of the question assumes the prisoner's guilt. pointment by a county clerk of a deputy, ac
-Id. knowledged before a justice of the peace, is admissible in evidence.-Smith v. State, 156 S.
Defendant's confession, though obtained withW, 645.
out warning that it might be used against him
and by persistent questioning on the part of (1) Opinion Evidence.
the officers, but without deception or hope of $ 448 (Tex.Cr.App.) The testimony of a wit- reward, or any threat other than the remark ness, who had measured tracks and the shoes of that it would be better for his conscience if he accused that they were of the same length, was told everything, was a voluntary confession.-Id. a statement of fact.-Wilson v. State, 156 S.
$ 535 (Ark.) Under Kirby's Dig. § 2385, proW. 204.
viding that a confession, unless made in open $ 473 (Tex.Cr. App.) Where physicians were court, will not warrant a conviction unless acqualified and testified as to an examination of companied with other proof that such offense a wound in defendant's arm and described the was committed, there must be independent eviwound and its condition, their testimony as to dence to establish that the crime was actually the length of time it had been inflicted was ad- committed by some one.-Greenwood v. State, missible.-Pullen v. State, 156 S. W. 935.
156 S. W. 427. $ 475 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for homicide with a pistol, opinion evidence by an ex
(M) Weight and sufficiency. pert as to how the balls entered and left de $ 549 (Tex.Cr.App.) Exculpatory or ceased's body is inadmissible, where the expert able explanation showing innocence must be did not view the wounds until after they had shown false, and it may be viewed or weighed been stuffed with cotton.-Roberts v. State, 156 in the light of all the facts and its falsity so S. W. 651.
determined.-McKnight v. State, 156 S. w.
1188. (J) Testimony of Accomplices and Code
$ 552 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where circumstantial fendants.
evidence is relied upon, the facts must exclude $ 507 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where an officer or other every other conclusion or hypothesis except person takes steps to detect a crime or get that of guilt to warrant a conviction.-Wilevidence, such person, when testifying as
liams v. State, 156 S. W. 938. witness, is not an accomplice.-Ausbrook v. $ 561 (Tex.Cr.App.) One charged with crime State, 156 S. W. 1177.
is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt 8 50742 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant on every issue of fact going to show his guilt.tempted to raise the issue that an adverse wit- Jones v. State, 156 S. W. 1191. ness was an accomplice, held, that it was prop $ 572 (Mo.App.) If the evidence left a reasoner to allow the witness in support of his state- ; able doubt as to defendant's presence at the ment that he had not been discharged by his place of the offense at the time of its commis. employer for his connection with the offense to sion, he could not be convicted, for the preexplain his absence from work for a few days.- sumption of innocence attends him throughout Holmes v. State, 156 S. W. 1172.
the trial and be can only be convicted on the
establishment of guilt beyond a reasonable that such statements were not competent to esdoubt.-State v. Miles, 156 S. W. 758.
tablish defendant's guilt.-Liner v. State, 156
S. W. 211. XI. TIME OF TRIAL AND CONTIN
8 683 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where accused, on trial UANCE.
for seduction, showed, on the cross-examination 8 594 (Tex.Cr.App.) The court did not err, on of prosecutrix, that he paid expenses incurred the day of a criminal trial, in refusing accus- by her going away, the state could show that ed time to inform her attorney, who had just he had not paid all the expenses but that her been employed, to get a witness, who would father had paid part of them.-Cole v. State, have testified that she and accused were to- 156 S. W. 929. gether shortly before the alleged commission, 8 684 (Ky.) The court may permit in rebuttal but whose attendance accused had made no testimony that should have been introduced in effort to secure.—Johnson v. State, 156 S. W. chief.-Duff v. Commonwealth, 156 S. W. 149. 1181.
$ 687 (Ky.) Under Cr. Code Prac. $8 220$ 596 (Tex.Cr.App.) It is not error to refuse 223, defining the order of proof and proceeda continuance on the ground of the absence of ings in criminal cases, the action of the court in a witness whose testimony is impeaching.-Cole permitting the commonwealth's attorney, in his v. State, 156 S. W. 929.
closing argument, to compel accused to stand up $ 598 (Tex.Cr. App.) Accused, who relies on before the jury by the side of a state's witness his sister's word that she will attend court, held reversible error.–Balee v. Commonwealth, does not show diligence essential to a continu- 156 S. W. 147. ance on the ground of her absence.-Cole v. $ 687 (Tex.Cr.App.) Whether a case shall be State, 156 S. W. 929.
reopened after the testimony has closed is with8 598 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant was ar- in the sound discretion of the court.-Cole v. rested on May 19th and no process was issued State, 156 S. W. 929. for any witness until October 26th, the cause being set for trial October 31st, there was an
(E) Arguments and Conduct of Counsel. inexcusable lack of diligence, warranting the $ 720 (Tex.Cr.App.) Argument of the proseoverruling of an application for a continuance. cuting attorney is not improper where based on -Nunez v. State, 156 S. W. 933.
legitimate deductions from the testimony.
Wrba v. State, 156 S. W. 1164.
$ 721 (Tex.Cr. App.) District attorney's lan(A) Preliminary Proceedings.
guage, containing only an indirect reference to
defendant's failure to testify, held not reversi$ 622 (Tex.Cr.App.) Persons jointly indicted have the right to a severance and to direct the ble error.–Pullen v. State, 156 S. W. 935. order of trial on a severance.-Sanchez v. State, al for selling intoxicating liquor in prohibition
8 721 (Tex.Cr. App.) Where accused on a tri156 S. W. 218.
territory, did not testify, the statement of the 8 629 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant filed no motion to be furnished the names of wit might as well expect accused to testify that he
state's attorney in his argument that the jury nesses not indorsed on his copy of the indict. sold intoxicating liquor as to expect a state's ment, but waited until the case was called for witness to so testify was an improper reference trial, he thereby waived his right to object that to accused's failure to testify.-Jones v. State, the names had not been furnished him.-Holmes 156 S. W. 1191. v. State, 156 S. W. 1172.
8 722 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for (B) Course and conduct of Trial in Gen- breaking schoolbouse windows, argument of
county attorney inferentially charging accused
with other petty offenses of which there was $ 637 (Tex.Cr.App.) The fact that defendant no charge or evidence held error.-Liner v. State, was arrested in another case pending against | 156 S. W. 211. him during the time he was on trial was not ground for reversal.--Nunez v. State, 156 S.
$ 723 (Ky.) While accused's guilt or innoW. 933,
cence must be determined from the facts of the $ 641 (Tex.Cr.App.) White's Ann. Code Cr: lence of crime, it is within the limits of legiti
case, and he cannot be affected by the prevaProc. art. 547, requiring the court in capital mate argument to insist upon the jury doing felony cases to appoint counsel for accused, too its duty for the purpose of preventing bloodshed poor to employ counsel, is mandatory.-Burden and crime.-Williams v. Commonwealth, 158 v. State, 156 S. W. 1196.
S. W. 372. $ 643 (Tex, Cr. App.) Under White's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. art. 547, requiring the court in remarks of a prosecuting attorney, qualified by
$ 726 (Tex.Cr. App.) A bill of exceptions to capital felony cases to appoint counsel for ac, the judge's statement "refused because in ancused too poor to employ counsel, and Acts 320
swer to argument of defendant's counsel," preLeg. p. 264, providing for official court stenographers, the court, in a capital felony case 1172.
sents no error.-Holmes v. State, 156 S. W. appointing counsel for accused, must compel the stenographer, when an appeal is perfected, to
$ 730 (Ky.) Remark of commonwealth's atfurnish a transcript.-Burden v. State, 156 s. torney in murder case that there were nine murW. 1196.
der cases on the docket, and that this state of
affairs would not be stopped until some one was 8 649 (Tex.Cr.App.) On facts stated, held, sent to the chair, held not reversible error, that refusal to defer the selection of a jury un- though improper, where the court withdrew it til defendant had been furnished with the, from the jury's consideration.-Williams names of all contributors to a fund in aid of Commonwealth, 156 S. W. 372. prosecution was not error.-Holmes V. State, 156 S. W! 1172.
(F) Province of Court and Jury in Gen
eral. (C) Reception of Evidence.
$ 741 (Tex.Cr.App:) An instruction on a trial 8 671 (Ark.) The approved practice is to with- for horse theft held not on the weight of the draw the jury while the court is hearing evi- evidence.-Haley v. State, 156 S. W. 637. dence to determine whether a confession is ad- $ 744 (Ky.) Where a second indictment showmissible.-Greenwood v. State, 156 S. W. 427. ed, on its face, that it was a continuation of
8 673 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where contradictory state the former prosecution, begun by indictment ments of unsatisfactory witnesses for the state which had been quashed, and there was no conwere admitted, it was error to refuse to charge I flict in the evidence on the question, the court
should not submit to the jury the question tial evidence was error.-Huddleston v. State, whether the second indictment was returned in 156 S. W. 1168. lieu of the former.-Balee v. Commonwealth, 156
$ 792 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for the S. W. 147.
theft of cattle, where it was an issue whether 8 761 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the issue was defendants were so connected with the origwhether beer sold by accused in prohibition inal taking as to be principals, the jury should territory would produce intoxication, an in- have been appropriately instructed thereon.struction that beer is a fermented liquor, and McKnight v. State, 156 S. W. 1188. that all fermented liquors are intoxicating, was $ 800 (Tex.Cr. App.) In a prosecution for aserroneous for failing to leave the issue to the sault with intent to kill, held, that an instrucjury.-Jones v. State, 156 S. W. 1191.
tion on adequate cause without explaining or de$$763, 764 (Tex.Cr. App.) In a prosecution for fining the same was erroneous.-Robinson v. the theft of cattle, an instruction that, if they State, 156 S. W. 212. were stolen as charged and found in the pos $ 811 (Ky.) ID prosecution for unlawfully session of defendants shortly thereafter, such detaining a woman against her will, an instrucpossession and the explanation thereof, if any, tion, that if accused took hold of her with inwould be proper for the consideration of the tent to have carnal intercourse this would be jury in determining the guilt or innocence of an unlawful taking and detaining, is not imthe defendants under all the circumstances was proper in singling out certain circumstances objectionable as a charge on the weight of the and charging that they would constitute guilt. evidence.-McKnight v. State, 156 S. W. 1188. -Black v. Commonwealth, 156 S. W. 1013.
88 763, 764 (Tex.Cr.App.) A charge given aft 8 814 (Ky.) A statement by accused to third er the jury's retirement, on its request, as to persons as to how he came to enter the chamwhether it could convict of an attempt to com ber of prosecutrix, which was overheard and mit theft from the person under an indictment | testified to by the witness, is not a confession charging theft, which authorized such convic-that requires an instruction on the subject of tion upon the finding of an attempt in the confessions.-Black v. Commonwealth, 156 S. state and county named and on the date al- | W. 1043. leged in the indictment, and from the person $ 814 (Tex.Cr. App.) In a prosecution for kidnamed as owner held not on the weight of the napping, where the jurisdiction of the offense evidence.-Bell v. State, 156 S. W. 1194. was in issue and where there was no proof that
the channel of the Rio Grande had suddenly (G) Necessity, Requisites, and Sufficiency changed, there was no error in refusing deof Instructions.
fendant's requested charge assuming that the $ 770 (Tex.Cr. A pp.) In a prosecution for the river had suddenly changed its course into a theft of cattle, an instruction that, if they were
new channel.-Nunez v. Štate, 156 S. W. 933. stolen as charged and found in the possession 8 814 (Tex.Cr. App.) Where there was no tesof defendants shortly thereafter, such posses- timony suggesting that certain parties were acsion and the explanation thereof, if any, would complices, the court did not err in refusing to be proper for the consideration of the jury in submit that issue to the jury.-Holmes v. State, determining the guilt or innocence of the de- 156 S. W. 1172. fendants under all the circumstances was ob
$ 815 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for jectionable as submitting the defendants' inno- theft from the person, an instruction held not cence; his guilt being the only question for the improper in unduly limiting the defense, in exjury.-McKnight v. State, 156 S. W. 1188.
cluding from the consideration of the jury the $ 772 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for the question whether accused had any money, or theft of cattle, where the question of defend- whether the money found on him was that won ants' possession in the county where the in- by him in gambling.–Green v. State, 156 S. W. dictment was found was fought out before the 682. jury on the facts, a charge failing to submit such issue was reversible error.- McKnight v.
$ 815 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for the State, 156 S. W. 1188.
theft of cattle, where defendant explained that $ 779 (Tex.Cr. App.) An instruction that if pointed out, and did not claim them, an in
he did not know they were in his herd until defendants, or either of them, assaulted the struction that if they were stolen as charged, prosecuting witness with intent to kill, to find and defendant was found in possession therethem, or either of them, guilty of assault with of, such possession and its explanation, if any, intent to murder, was erroneous; since it au- might be considered on the question of guilt thorized a conviction of both, if either made an was erroneous assault with such intent.-Maldonado v. State, phase of the case.-McKnight v. State, 156 S.
as not submitting defendant's 156 S. W. 647.
W. 1188. $ 780 (Tex.Cr. App.) In prosecution for
$ 823 (Tex.Cr.App.) An instruction that prosburglary, the mere fact that an employé of the ecutrix, on a trial for seduction, is an accomowner of the warehouse was employed to feed plice and that accused cannot be convicted on stock and carried a key to the warehouse would her testimony alone unless there is other evinot raise the issue of his authority to permit dence tending to connect accused with the ofanother to go to it in the dead of night to carry fense, is not erroneous for failing to charge on away feed, so as to require a charge thereon.- reasonable doubt covered by an instruction folHolmes v. State, 156 S. W. 1172.
lowing.–Cole v. State, 156 S. W. 929. $ 784 (Tex.Cr. App.) It is only when the testimony relied on for a conviction is wholly cir
(H) Requests for Instructions. cumstantial that the court is required to charge on circumstantial evidence; and, where there
$ 829 (Tex.Cr. App.) It was not error to rewas positive testimony that defendant was the fuse a special charge which was fully embraced man who committed the burglary, the weight in the charge given.--Irving v. State, 156 S. W. of which was somewhat weakened by cross-ex
641. amination, no charge on circumstantial evi $ 829 (Tex.Cr. App.) An instruction held to dence was necessary.- Pullen v. State, 156 S. sufficiently charge that there can be no seducW. 935.
tion unless prosecutrix yielded her virtue alone $ 784 (Tex.Cr. App.) Where there had been in consideration of promise of marriage, so no difficulty between defendant and deceased. that it was not error to refuse a requested and defendant in a general fight struck deceas: I charge on the subject.-Cole v. State, 156 S. W. ed, but it was not shown who the others in the
929. fight were or what kind of an instrument made $ 829 (Tex.Cr. App.) The refusal of special the wound, a failure to charge on circumstan- I charges is not error where fully covered by the
court's main charge.-Holmes v. State, 156 S. XV. APPEAL AND ERROR, AND
(A) Form of Remedy, Jurisdiction, and
Right of Review.
$ 1020 (Mo.App.) Where the punishment was
Krouse, 156 S. W. 727.
156 S. W. 206.
er Court of Grounds of Review.
$ 1036 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where prosecutrix was
tested as to her competency, and the court de.
cided that she was competent, and her testi-
-Kinch v. State, 156 S. W. 649.
$ 1038 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where accused did not
misdemeanor prosecution, as required by Code
cial charge, there was no reversible error.--
Johnson v. State, 156 S. W. 1164.
(C) Proceedings for Transfer of Cause,
and Effect Thereof.
S 1077 (Tex.Cr.App.) Act 32d Leg. p. 268, §
reporter shall furnish such attorney, if con-
victed, and where an appeal is prosecuted,
with a transcript, as provided in section 5, for
the furnishing of a transcript of the evidence
be ordered, the circuit court must, as matter of
$ 1088 (Tex.Cr. App.) Where the official ste-
nographer failed to comply with the order of
stenographer could not comply with the order
of the Court of Criminal Appeals because he
$ 1090 (Tex.Cr. App.) On appeal in a criminal
ciency of the evidence to warrant a conviction
of exceptions, objections to the admission and
rejection of evidence cannot be considered.- | be reviewed in the absence of statement of
facts in the record.-McCain v. State, 156 S.
sidered.-Castenara v. State, 156 S. W. 1180.
8 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant
court allows any time after adjournment in
$ 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) A statement of facts
filed after sentence, entered nunc pro tunc at
§ 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement of facts not
Where accused's statement of facts was not
$ 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where a statement of
question whether the jury discussed defendant's
$ 1090 (Tex.Cr. App.) The denial of a motion in the motion for new trial was the insuffi-
8 1105 (Tex.Cr. App.) A transcript, not cer-
approved by the trial judge, cannot be consid-
81106 (Tex.Cr.App.), Transcripts are required
v. State, 156 S. W. 206.
$ 1106 (Tex.Cr.App.) Accused having been
having been filed, though more than 90 days
81106 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under White's Ann.
more than 90 days have elapsed between the
trial and the time of filing.-Francis v. State,