Doyle v. State

Decision Date16 February 1910
Citation126 S.W. 1131
PartiesDOYLE v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Robert B. Seay, Judge.

Jim Doyle was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Wiley & Baskett, for appellant. John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

This conviction was for burglary; the possession of the house being alleged in Charles Mangold.

1. The first bill of exceptions recites that there were two indictments against appellant charging him with two separate felonies; one charged burglary of a house belonging to N. S. Board, the other the indictment in this case; that the indictment in the Board case was returned by the grand jury on the 29th of January, 1909. In this case the indictment was returned on the 3d of April, 1909, by the same grand jury that indicted appellant for burglarizing the Board house. This affidavit further avers that the grand jury, prior to returning this bill of indictment, had him before them and agreed with him that they would not indict him if he would not commit any further violations of the law. It is further recited that the Board case had been continued a time or two, and had been continued just before this case was called for trial. Appellant insists the agreement he made with the grand jury not to violate the law any further, if they would not indict him, is binding on the state of Texas, and by reason of this agreement he should not be prosecuted, and especially in this case until after the disposition of the Board case; that he had not violated the law in what is termed the Board case; that it should be determined in that case that he was guilty before he could be prosecuted in this case; and, if it was determined in the Board case he was not guilty, that he should not be prosecuted in this case, because the agreement of the grand jury would relieve him from prosecution. This is the substance of his plea. We are of opinion that there is nothing in this contention. The grand jury had no right to make any such agreement with appellant, and, if they did make it, it was not binding on the state nor the courts.

2. The second bill of exceptions was reserved to the manner of summoning the jury for the week that tried appellant. It is the same question that was decided in the case of Hattie Martin v. State (decided at the present term) 124 S. W. 681. In accordance with the decision of that case, we hold there was no merit in appellant's insistence.

3. Another bill recites that the county attorney, while cross-examining appellant, who took the stand in his own behalf, held up and exhibited to appellant an envelope containing papers in cause No. 9,562, it being a burglary charge against him that had not been tried, and asked appellant the following question: "You are now under indictment in this court in another case, No. 9,562, that has never been tried, are you not?" Objection was urged that it was immaterial and irrelevant, and threw no light on whether or not the appellant was guilty in the case on trial; that the indictment was no evidence of guilt in that case, and could not be used as evidence against him. These objections being overruled, appellant answered, "Yes, sir." The court approves this bill, with the statement that he only allowed the state's attorney to ask the witness if he was now confined in jail on another charge of burglary in which he had been indicted by the grand jury of Dallas county, to which question he affirmatively answered. The court further states that the state's attorney was not allowed to exhibit the papers or prove the number of the case, and they were not offered in evidence. With this explanation by the court, we fail to see any error. It is legitimate under the decisions to show by the witness that he has been indicted for felonies in other cases as a means of attacking his credibility as a witness.

4. Another bill of exceptions recites that the indictment charged appellant with the burglary of a house belonging to Charles Mangold; that the evidence showed that the front window in the house belonging to one Albert E. Mangold was broken out, and the defendant was found and arrested in the house of Albert E. Mangold, which was adjoining the house belonging to Charles Mangold; that the defendant was never seen in the house of Charles Mangold; that when he was arrested he was in the house of Albert E. Mangold, and when he was discovered in that house the doors between said two houses were closed; that there was a box of cigars missing from the Charles Mangold house, and the drawers in the office desk were open, and the papers scattered on the floor; that there were cigars of the same brand in the Albert Mangold house that were in the Charles Mangold house, and it was not known whether any of them were missing, but the defendant was near said cigar case; that when arrested defendant had some cigars of a like brand in his pocket, but did not have a box of them; that there was no opening between said two houses testified to by any witness as being open when the defendant was discovered and arrested, except a large transom about three feet deep and about eight feet across; that ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • United States v. Knohl, 340
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • June 22, 1967
    ......Clark's report was submitted to Judge Herlands, to whom the case had meanwhile been assigned. Dr. Clark concluded that Knohl's state of health did not preclude his standing trial if the proceedings commenced shortly thereafter and lasted no more than a week or two. . "Concerning ...United States, 336 U.S. 613, 69 S.Ct. 766, 93 L.Ed. 919; Ellisor v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 117, 282 S.W.2d 393; an element in the crime, Doyle v. State, 59 Tex.Cr.R. 39, 126 S.W. 1131; identity, Chavira v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 197, 319 S.W.2d 115; malice, Moss v. State, 364 S.W.2d 389; ......
  • Spencer v. State of Texas Bell v. State of Texas Reed v. Beto 8212 70
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1967
    ......Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 69 S.Ct. 766, 93 L.Ed. 919, Ellisor v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 117, 282 S.W.2d 393; an element in the crime, Doyle v. State, 59 Tex.Cr.R. 39, 126 S.W. 1131; identity, Chavira v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 197, 319 S.W.2d 115; malice, Moss v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 364 S.W.2d 389; motive, Moses v. State, 168 Tex. . Page 561 . Cr.R. 409, 328 S.W.2d 885; a system of criminal activity, Haley v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 519, ......
  • State v. Prieur, 52365
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • February 19, 1973
    ...S.Ct. 766, 93 L.Ed. 919, Ellisor v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 117, 282 S.W.2d 393; an element in the crime, Doyle v. State, 59 Tex.Cr.R. 39, 126 S.W. 1131; identity, Chavira v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 197, 319 S.W.2d 115; malice, Moss v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 364 S.W.2d 389; motive, Moses v. State, 1......
  • Hathorne v. State, 42871
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • October 21, 1970
    ...... Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 69 S.Ct. 766, 93 L.Ed. 919; Ellisor v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 117, 282 S.W.2d 393; an element in the crime, Doyle v. State, 59 Tex.Cr.R. 39, 126 S.W. 1131; identity, Chavira v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 197, 319 S.W.2d 115; malice, Moss v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 364 S.W.2d 389; motive, Moses v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 409, 328 S.W.2d 885; a system of criminal activity, Haley v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 223 S.W. 202; or ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT