Carpenter v. State, 23274.
Decision Date | 23 January 1946 |
Docket Number | No. 23274.,23274. |
Citation | 192 S.W.2d 268 |
Parties | CARPENTER v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Jasper County; F. P. Adams, Judge.
W. E. Carpenter was convicted of keeping and exhibiting a gaming table, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
W. J. Baldwin, of Beaumont and W. H. Hall, of Newton, for appellant.
Ernest S. Goens, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for the offense of keeping and exhibiting a gaming table, to-wit, a Do and Don't Dice Table. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.
The indictment in this case contains three counts, in the first of which appellant is charged with unlawfully keeping and being interested in keeping a certain building, room and place there situate, for the purpose of being used as a place to bet and wager, etc. In the second count he is charged with unlawfully keeping and exhibiting for the purpose of gaming, a gaming table, to-wit, a Do and Don't Dice Table. In the third count he is charged with knowingly permitting certain property and premises then and there owned and controlled by him to be kept for the purpose of being used as a place to bet and wager and to gamble with dice, etc.
When this case was first called for trial in the District Court of Orange County, the State, in due time, filed a motion for a change of venue. Appellant addressed a number of exceptions to the motion and also denied all the allegations therein. The court heard evidence, and at the conclusion thereof, appellant filed a motion in which he prayed that in the event the court changed the venue, the same should be changed to Jefferson County, since the county seat of said county was nearest to the county seat of Orange County. However, the court found that the same and similar conditions existed in Jefferson County as in Orange County, and therefore changed the venue of the case to Jasper County, the adjoining county to Orange County and being in the same judicial district.
Appellant complains of the action of the trial court relative to the change of venue of the case. We do not deem it necessary to enter upon an extended discussion of the complaints because when the case was called for trial in the District Court of Jasper County, appellant, by and through his attorney, agreed with the District Attorney that the case was properly transferred on a change of venue from the District Court of Orange County to the District Court of Jasper County; that in transferring said case all the requirements of the law had been complied with; that it was properly before the District Court of Jasper County. This stipulation appears in the statement of facts which is signed by the District Attorney and the appellant's attorney, and is approved by the trial judge. In our opinion, this disposed of any question as to the correctness of the action of the court in changing the venue of the case to Jasper County. However, in the absence of such an agreement we see no error reflected by the bill under the holding of this court in the case of Pickett v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 189 S.W.2d 741.
The court submitted the case to the jury on the second count of the indictment.
We will now discuss appellant's complaint which relates to the court's action in declining to sustain his plea of immunity in bar of the prosecution in this case. He claims that on the night of the alleged offense, he entered a plea of guilty before the Justice of the Peace of Precinct No. 4 of Orange County, to a complaint in which he was charged under Art. 628, P.C., with the offense of permitting intermittent gaming prohibited by law to be played upon his premises and upon premises under his control, etc. He bases his contention on Art. 639, P.C., which provides as follows: etc.
The conviction in the instant case was for the offense of unlawfully keeping and exhibiting for the purpose of gaming, a gaming table, to-wit, a Do and Don't Dice Table, which is an offense denounced by Art. 619, P.C. This is an entirely different offense from the one charged in the complaint pending in the Justice Court to which he entered a plea of guilty. The penalty prescribed for the offense denounced by Art. 619, supra, is a felony, while the offense denounced in Art. 628, supra, to which he entered a plea of guilty in the Justice Court, is a misdemeanor. Appellant did not testify, nor was he asked or required to testify on his trial in the Justice Court. Consequently, Art. 639 supra, is not applicable in the instant case under the facts stated. His plea of guilty to the offense denounced by Art. 628, supra, was but an admission by him that he was guilty of said offense. There is not a word in the record that the offense for which he was on trial in the instant case was mentioned or referred to by him in his plea of guilty. It is our understanding that in order for a person to be able to avail himself of immunity under Art. 639, supra, the burden is upon him to show that he was summoned as a witness and examined relative to a violation of the particular statute under which he is being prosecuted. In support of what we have said here, we refer to the case of Tutt v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 29 S.W. 268.
In the case of Kain v. State, 16 Tex.App. 282, at page 311, this court, speaking through Judge Hurt, made the following observations:
In the present instance, the record fails to show that appellant testified to this particular transaction before the Justice of the Peace. Therefore, his plea of immunity cannot avail him. See Johnson v. State, 101 Ark. 159, 141 S.W. 493; also 20 Tex.Jur. p. 613, sec. 11.
By Bill of Exception No. 3 appellant asserts that he was required to accept three jurors who had served in the case of The State of Texas v. Hyde, wherein Hyde was charged with an offense similar to that for which appellant was on trial but at an entirely different place. It appears from the bill that appellant raised the question for the first time in his motion for a new trial. This was entirely too late. He could not sit quietly by and accept three jurors and then...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kirkland v. State
...charged with an offense of the same character. Bolden v. State, 683 S.W.2d 822 (Tex.App.1984, pet. ref'd); Carpenter v. State, 149 Tex.Crim. 144, 192 S.W.2d 268 (1946); Anderson v. State, 34 Tex.Crim. 96, 29 S.W. 384 (1895). Nor is disqualification required if they served on a jury in compa......
-
Ortega v. State
...conferring immunity when court or prosecutor compels party to appear and testify in court regarding offense); Carpenter v. State, 149 Tex.Crim. 144, 192 S.W.2d 268, 270 (1946) (holding under prior version of section 47.08 that to obtain immunity, party seeking it must has burden "to show th......
-
Sharp v. State, 23977.
...attorney. See France v. State, 148 Tex. Cr.R. 341, 187 S.W.2d 80; Cavazos v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 322, 186 S.W.2d 990; Carpenter v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 192 S.W. 2d 268; and Alamo v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 200 S.W.2d Bill of Exception No. 3, complaining of another remark by the district attorne......
-
Killebrew v. State
...822 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1984, pet. ref'd); see also, Williams v. State, 274 S.W.2d 704 (Tex.Crim.App.1954); Carpenter v. State, 149 Tex.Crim. 144, 192 S.W.2d 268 (1946); Stephens v. State, 137 Tex.Crim. 551, 132 S.W.2d 878 Killebrew's contention that the four jurors in the instant case wer......