Jetty v. State

• Decision Date: 30 November 1921
• Docket Number: (No. 6407.)
• Citation: 235 S.W. 589
• Parties: JETTY v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

235 S.W. 589

JETTY v. STATE.

(No. 6407.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 30, 1921.

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

Arthur Jetty was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Affirmed.

See, also, 211 S. W. 945.

R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HAWKINS, J.

Appellant was charged with the murder of his wife. Conviction for manslaughter followed, with punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

We do not regard it as necessary to set the testimony out at length. Appellant's marriage seems to have been one of those hurried and unfortunate unions entered into a few months before he sailed for France with the American Expeditionary Forces. During his absence and after his return his wife's conduct was not of an exemplary character. The evidence is amply sufficient to support the verdict.

The case went to trial on January 17th. On the next day appellant filed a motion to withdraw his announcement and continue the case on account of the condition of one of his witnesses, Mrs. Etta Winrod. Said witness is averred to have been a "drug addict." On the night of January 17th when counsel attempted to converse with her she was under the influence of morphine, opiates, and drugs, and was unable to remember facts or relate them in detail. There is no averment in the motion that witness was not in the same condition when the trial was begun. The application is for continuance. It is deficient in that it wholly fails to state that there was no reasonable expectation of procuring the attendance and testimony of such witness during the term of court then in session by a postponement to a future day thereof. The case did not go to the jury until January 20th. There is no showing that witness was still incapacitated to testify at that time. Sweeney v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 373, 128 S. W. 390.

Bills of exceptions Nos. 2, 3, and 4 consist entirely of questions and answers and rulings of the court. We wish again to express our disapproval of bills in this form. They do not comply with the requirements. See Vernon's C. C. P. p. 537, note 21. It may sometimes be necessary for the trial judge to direct the incorporation of questions and answers for the aid of this court, but in the first instance they should not be presented in this form. In so far as we have been able to discover from the bills in their present condition no reversible error is shown. One is apparently complaining that upon redirect examination of a witness the district attorney framed his questions assuming that deceased's brains had been beaten out. The bill nowhere states that this had not been shown. Another recites that while a witness was testifying she was asked: "Did you ever hear her talk to him about the criminal records of his brother?" The bill is silent as to whom reference is made. The fourth bill presents objections to an officer testifying what statements were made to him by appellant. We...