Alexander v. State
| Decision Date | 10 February 1926 |
| Docket Number | (No. 9866.) |
| Parties | ALEXANDER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Grayson County; F. E. Wilcox, Judge.
Bill Alexander was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
J. P. Cox, of Sherman, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State's Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
Conviction in district court of Grayson county for selling intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.
Appellant was convicted for selling choc beer. Two young men testified that they bought it from him on the occasion in question, and drank it, and that it made them drunk. Other witnesses who saw them on said occasion testified that they were drunk.
There are several bills of exception, all of which have been carefully examined. Bill No. 1 is wholly without merit. The question asked by the appellant, the rejection of whose answer by the court, upon objection by the state, is complained of in bills Nos. 3, 4, and 5, does not appear to be of any materiality. A number of other matters are set up in each one of said bills of exception, no question relative to which was shown to have been asked, and in such case we have no means of ruling upon the other matters beside the one involved in the question asked.
Bill of exceptions No. 6 complains of the admission in evidence of the testimony of an unpardoned convict. If we understand the provisions of the act of the Legislature of 1925 (Laws 1925, c. 27), an unpardoned convict has the same right to testify as a pardoned one, provided he is not incarcerated in the penitentiary at the time of trial.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant renews his contention that by bills of exception Nos. 3, 4 and 5, complaining of the rejection of certain testimony offered by him, error was shown. Said bills show the state's objection to an identical question propounded to three witnesses, viz: "Have you learned how choc beer is made, or do you know how choc beer is made?" A casual inspection of the form of this question thus asked makes it evident that a witness could not testify to the fact abstractly that he had learned how choc beer was made, or give the jury testimony setting forth what he had learned, unless claiming to qualify as an expert, which is not asserted to be true of any of said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooke v. State
...of such subdivision by the 39th Legislature (1st C. S.), c. 13, p. 20, which was subsequent to the opinion in Alexander's Case, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 620, 281 S. W. 852. The other questions suggested have already been The request for leave to file second motion for rehearing is denied. ...
-
Fitzgerald v. State
...the deposition of such convict as in other criminal cases. Construing the act last referred to, this court held in Alexander v. State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 620, 281 S. W. 852, and in Brunett v. State, 26 S.W.(2d) 208, that an unpardoned convict had the same right to testify as a pardoned one, pr......
-
Bailey v. State
... ... Upon objection by the state, the witness was not permitted to testify. A conditional pardon by Governor Miriam A. Ferguson granted on the 20th day of January, 1926, was produced. We held in Alexander v ... State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 620, 281 S. W. 852, that the provisions of chapter 27 of the Acts of the Thirty-Ninth Legislature had the effect of rendering an unpardoned convict competent to testify, provided he was not incarcerated in the penitentiary at the time of the trial. In Underwood v ... ...
-
Pearson v. State, 15526.
...the penitentiary shall not be allowed to testify. Said article referred to, article 708, was construed in the case of Alexander v. State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 620, 281 S. W. 852, to mean that an unpardoned convict has the same right to testify as a pardoned one, provided he is not incarcerated i......