Hawkins v. State
| Decision Date | 21 January 1903 |
| Citation | 71 S.W. 756 |
| Parties | HAWKINS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Jefferson county; J. D. Martin, Judge.
Tim Hawkins was convicted of robbery, and appeals. Affirmed.
Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of robbery, and given five years in the penitentiary.
The first bill of exceptions is reserved to the following language of the prosecuting attorney: "The only testimony offered by defendant to refute the statements of the prosecuting witness is the testimony of defendant." And the second bill complains of the following language used by the same officer: There is nothing in the first bill. It is but the statement of a fact borne out by the record; that is, appellant was the only witness who testified in his behalf. Statements of prosecuting officers as to their action and belief in regard to cases in which they appear should be avoided, and not indulged; but the matter here complained of is not of sufficient importance to require a reversal of the judgment. There was no charge asked of the court to withdraw these remarks, or instruct the jury to disregard the same, and only try the case upon the facts adduced. Improper argument or statements by prosecuting officers might be of such grave character as to require reversal. These remarks are not within that category.
Another bill was reserved to the following remarks of the same officer: The evidence shows that appellant was arrested at Foley & Rowland's saloon shortly after the alleged robbery. Neither Foley nor Rowland, nor any of those in or about their saloon, were placed upon the witness stand; but Sheriff Landry testified: "When I arrested defendant, and he and those about him, at the saloon, upon my informing him of the offense of which he was arrested he told me that he had been at that saloon since 7 o'clock p. m., and that he was not the man I was looking for." We believe the remarks were justified by this evidence. However, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v. State
...v. State, 19 Tex. App. 536; Kennedy v. State, 19 Tex. App. 618; Spangler v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 233, 61 S. W. 314; Hawkins v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 71 S. W. 756; Hinton v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 408, 144 S. W. 617. In some of the cases noted, the point turned upon a failure to request the ......
-
Parroccini v. State
...App. 600, 13 S. W. 1001; Thomas v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 607, 28 S. W. 534; Spangler v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 248, 61 S. W. 314; Hawkins v. State, 71 S. W. 756; Ball v. State, 78 S. W. 508; Hinton v. State, 144 S. W. In his bills of exceptions Nos. 1 and 3 appellant complains of the trial c......
-
Walker v. State
...As supporting the holding we cited Kennedy v. State, 19 Tex.App. 618; Spangler v. State, 42 Tex.Cr.R. 233, 61 S.W. 314; Hawkins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 71 S.W. 756; Hinton v. State, 65 Tex.Cr.R. 408, 144 S.W. 617. We refer now to the following additional authorities. Ball v. State, Tex.Cr.Ap......
-
Marinkovich v. State
...To the same effect is Kennedy v. State, 19 Tex. App. 618. See, also, Spangler v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 233, 61 S. W. 314; Hawkins v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 71 S. W. 756; Hinton v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 408, 144 S. W. 617. The complaint of argument must be always considered in the light of th......