Green v. State
Decision Date | 22 May 1895 |
Citation | 31 S.W. 386 |
Parties | GREEN v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Harris county; E. D. Cavin, Judge.
Lewis Green was convicted of burglary, and appeals. Reversed.
Thompson & Carter, for appellant. Mann Trice, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant in this case was tried under an indictment charging him with burglary, was convicted, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for three years, and from the judgment and sentence of the lower court he prosecutes this appeal.
The appellant assigns as error the remarks of the district attorney in addressing the jury, and claims that same was a criticism upon the failure of appellant to testify in the case. It appears that the remarks were to the effect that the district attorney charged that defendant had given no account of his possession of the property alleged to have been stolen at the time he was accused of having committed the burglary. The appellant insisted that the said remarks had allusion to his failure to testify, while the district attorney insisted that he had no such purpose, but his allusion was to the fact that defendant was caught in possession of the stolen goods, and failed then to make any explanation, and his failure to do so must be regarded by the jury as a criminative circumstance. The remark of the district attorney without explanation, in our opinion, bears no such construction as the appellant insisted in placing upon it, but certainly, as explained by the district attorney, it had no such reference.
During the colloquy with regard to said remarks, the court asked the counsel for appellant to state the language used by the district attorney; but, instead of stating the language, he stated his construction of the language. The court thereupon stated that he would not sign the bill of exceptions in that shape, and, if counsel insisted on such a bill, he would have to procure same from the bystanders, as provided by law; and appellant also took an exception to these remarks of the court. We cannot but regard the contention of appellant as frivolous. The court merely did his duty in the premises in stating the character of the bill he would sign, and in notifying counsel, if they desired a different bill of exceptions, they would have to procure same in the mode provided by law.
The appellant also assigns as error the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. The charge in this case...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cooksey v. State
...a conviction the property must be sufficiently identified as that stolen at the time of the burglary. 9 C. J. 1081, sec. 141; Green v. State, 31 S.W. 386. W. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General for the state. Variance as to the ownership of property burglarized is an amendable defect and ......
-
Rogers v. State
...Nichols v. State, 479 S.W.2d 277 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); Oliver v. State, 69 Tex.Crim. 263, 153 S.W. 309 (1913); Green v. State, 31 S.W. 386 (Tex.Crim.App.1895). It is for the factfinder to weigh whatever descriptive evidence is presented regarding identification of the property missing vis-a-......
-
Wilkerson v. State
...it would not be permissible to reverse a case because the state mentioned the fact that appellant had offered no witness. Green v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 31 S. W. 386; Parker v. Same (Tex. Cr. App.) 45 S. W. 812; Matthews v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 51 S. W. 915. It appears that other statement......
-
Cutler v. State
... ... People v. McGrath, 5 Utah 525, 17 P. 116 ... The ... bare allusion to the failure of defendant to testify has been ... held by the Texas court of criminal appeals as not sufficient ... error upon which to reverse the case. See Green v ... State (Tex. Cr.), 31 S.W. 386; Parker v ... State, 39 Tex. Cr. 262, 45 S.W. 812; ... Mathews v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 98, 51 S.W ... 915; Bruce v. State (Tex. Cr.), 53 S.W ... 867; Wilkerson v. State (Tex. Cr.), 57 S.W ... 956. The most that can be said [15 Ariz. 350] in favor of the ... ...