Hartgraves v. State, 36476

Decision Date05 February 1964
Docket NumberNo. 36476,36476
Citation374 S.W.2d 888
PartiesJimmy B. HARTGRAVES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

J. W. Reid, Abilene, (On Appeal Only), Clay Coggins, Roby, for appellant.

Clyde Boose, County Atty., Sweetwater, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction upon an indictment alleging that the appellant contributed to the delinquency of nine named children under 17 years of age 'by acting in conjunction with said minor children in causing, encouraging and permitting said minor children to drink alcoholic beverages, to wit beer, which action on the part of the said Jimmy B. Hartgraves tended to injure and debase the morals, health and welfare of said minor children * * *.'

The court, in his charge, instructed the jury that the evidence showed that one of the named children was over 17 years of age and that there was no evidence that another of said children was present, and submitted the case to the jury and authorized a conviction upon a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant contributed to the delinquency of the remaining seven children in causing and encouraging them to drink beer, as alleged in the indictment, and the further finding that each or either of said seven children was over 10 and under 17 years of age.

The jury found the appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at 30 days in jail and a fine of $100.

We overrule the appellant's contetion that the indictment should have alleged that the named children were delinquents (or were dependent and neglected children). We do not agree that Art. 534 Vernon's Ann.P.C. is violated only when the child is a delinquent and the accused contributes to his or her further delinquency.

The word 'permitting,' which appears in the indictment, may be treated as surplusage. The court's charge did not authorize a conviction upon a finding that the appellant 'permitted' the children to drink beer.

We find no error in the overruling of appellant's exception to the indictment.

The appellant filed an amended motion for new trial alleging, among other grounds, that the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court were contrary to the law and the evidence, and further alleging that he would not be able to get a full, correct and complete statement of facts in the case because the veteran court reporter would be unable, due to his physical condition, to transcribe his notes and recordings sufficient to reflect a true, correct and full statement that would incorporate all of his informal bills of exception.

No statement of facts appears in the record.

The contention that the appellant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Harris v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 28, 1989
    ...supra (voir dire examination); Gamble, supra (final arguments during guilt and punishment before the jury); and, Hartgraves v. State, 374 S.W.2d 888, 890 (Tex.Cr.App.1964) (hearing on motion for new [T]he burden is on appellant to establish that he ha[s] been deprived of his statement of fa......
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 14, 1973
    ...this Court adopt the more rational rule, as urged in this dissent.1 Cf. Parker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 397 S.W.2d 853; Hartgraves v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 374 S.W.2d 888; Pierson v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 15, 177 S.W.2d 975; Navarro v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 196, 147 S.W.2d 1081.2 Cf. Article 36.1......
  • Routier v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 21, 2003
    ...(voir dire examination); Gamble v. State, 590 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex. Crim.App.1979) (final arguments); Hartgraves v. State, 374 S.W.2d 888, 890 (Tex. Crim.App.1964) (hearing on motion for new trial). We have said that "the circumstances in such cases should be viewed from the appellant's sta......
  • Melendez v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 18, 1996
    ...in agreeing upon same; viewed from his standpoint the latter party "unjustly deprived" of record on appeal); Hartgraves v. State, 374 S.W.2d 888, at 889-890 (Tex.Cr.App.1964) (because counsel tendered to county attorney and trial judge a statement of facts which they arbitrarily refused to ......
  • 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