Daniel v. State
| Decision Date | 08 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6321.) |
| Citation | 234 S.W. 77 |
| Parties | DANIEL v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Angelina County Court; John F. Robinson, Judge.
Otto Daniel was convicted of illegally practicing medicine, and appeals. Affirmed.
N. D. Wright, I. D. Fairchild, and John S. Redditt, all of Lufkin, for appellant.
R. H. Hamilton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of practicing medicine in violation of the law; punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and a jail sentence of 30 minutes.
Appellant is shown to have been a chiropractor, engaged in practicing medicine for pay in violation of the provisions of the Penal Code, c. 6, tit. 12. See Hicks v. State, 227 S. W. 302. The indictment was filed on the 10th day of December, 1920, and charged the offense to have been committed on or about the 22d day of October, 1919, and anterior to the presentment of the indictment.
Some of the acts relied upon by the state occurred subsequent to October 22, 1919, but prior to the filing of the indictment. The admission of these acts were complained of upon the ground that the state should have been limited to proof of acts occurring prior to October 22d. We think the appellant's contention is not sound. Proof of relevant facts was competent, going to show that the offense was committed at any time within the period of limitation and anterior to the presenting of the indictment. Branch's Crim. Law, § 275; Russell v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 500, 111 S. W. 658.
No other questions requiring discussion are raised.
No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
In his motion for rehearing, appellant, through his counsel, complains of the failure of the court to review and discuss the entire record and all questions raised by the appellant in the transcript and statement of facts. Counsel is mistaken in his assuming that this was not done. We will add, however, that the burden is not upon the court to discuss all questions raised, and to do so would extend the opinions beyond reasonable limits.
In misdemeanor cases, complaints of the charge and of the refusal of the special charges are reviewable only upon bills of exceptions. See art. 739 of Vernon's Texas Crim. Statutes, vol. 2, p. 499, and cases cited, including Brown v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. R. 574, 166 S. W. 508, in which will be found a collation of previous decisions.
Except in the matter of fundamental error, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benson v. State
...S. W. 603; Hunter v. State, 95 Tex. Cr. R. 394, 254 S. W. 993; Cottrell v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 131, 237 S. W. 928; Daniel v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 225, 234 S. W. 77. It would seem to need no argument to make plain that, under such rule, to allege in an indictment "on or about" a named dat......
-
Howard v. State, 13529.
...that in misdemeanor cases such refusal must be brought to the attention of the appellate court by bill of exceptions. Daniel v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 225, 234 S. W. 77; Crispi v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 621, 237 S. W. 263; Traylor v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 262, 239 S. W. 982. In this condition......