Giles v. State

• Decision Date: 19 March 1902
• Citation: 67 S.W. 411
• Parties: GILES v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

67 S.W. 411

GILES v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 19, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Dallas county; Chas. F. Clint, Judge.

Jeff Giles was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals. Reversed.

Thomas, Spellman & Stine, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of 25 years.

During the trial of the case, the state introduced a part of the testimony or examination of defendant taken before the grand jury; the portion of said examination being as follows: "My name is Jeff Giles. On the night of April 6, 1901, about 3 a. m., at the house of Laura Ross, at the corner of Young and Jefferson street, I entered the house from the rear; passed through the kitchen, and the door to the room that my wife was in. It was locked. I pulled the door open, and struck a match, and saw Henrietta Giles." The bill further shows that immediately following, and as a part of the sentence in said examination, occurred the following language: "and Luther Bruce in bed together." The last portion of said examination, however, was not introduced. Appellant objected to the introduction of any of said examination taken before the grand jury on the ground that it was an unauthorized violation of the secrets of the grand jury, and a violation of the oath of the grand jurors, and of the witnesses before the grand jury, which required them to keep secret the proceedings of the grand jury, except as to the truth or falsity of the testimony given before said grand jury. The court properly overruled this objection, under the rule laid down in Wisdom v. State, 61 S. W. 926, 2 Tex. Ct. Rep. 226, which case overturns several former decisions of this court on the subject.

Appellant also objected to the introduction of a part of said testimony, claiming that it was not competent for the state to cut a sentence of appellant's examination in two. It seems to be competent, under article 791, Code Cr. Proc., for a party to introduce any part of a writing that he may see fit, regardless of whether it contains a part or the whole of a sentence; and it is then competent for the other party, if he so desires (as was done in this case) to introduce the remainder. Early v. State, 9 Tex. App. 477.

Appellant excepted to the failure and refusal of the court to give a charge on accomplice testimony, as applied to the evidence of Luther Bruce, who was introduced by the state; claiming the testimony tended to show that said witness was an accomplice, and that his testimony was material and important as against appellant. The theory of the state was that appellant, because he believed that his wife was guilty of illicit intercourse with Luther Bruce, went to the room where his wife was sleeping, and, in the absence of Luther Bruce, killed her. Appellant's theory, as predicated upon some testimony...