Kelley v. State
| Decision Date | 04 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 8687.) |
| Citation | 269 S.W. 796 |
| Parties | KELLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Anderson County; Ben F. Dent, Judge.
Holley Kelley was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Anderson county of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary. There seems no dispute of the fact that appellant was transporting intoxicating liquor. Mr. Sullivan, a policeman in the city of Palestine, arrested appellant who had a bottle of whisky on his person, and it was ascertained upon further investigation that he had a quart of the same in his buggy. The only defense was that appellant testified that he was taking it to a doctor's office for the purpose of having the doctor tell him what it was, he claiming that he found it in his buggy and did not know what it was. There is no brief on file for the appellant.
The transcript contains six bills of exception, the first of which was taken to the refusal of the court to quash the indictment, because it did not allege that the liquor was being transported for the purpose of sale. This has been often decided contrary to the contention of appellant. It appears that more than one indictment was pending against appellant. When the district attorney arose to read the indictment to the jury, it is made to appear that he began to read the wrong indictment, but that he stopped reading of his own accord when he found he had the wrong one, and apologized, and found and read the correct indictment. In his qualification to the bill of exceptions complaining of this matter, the court states that no exception or objection was made by appellant, and that no charge asking the jury not to consider the matter was presented, and further that the district attorney, in the presence of the jury trying this case, dismissed from the docket the cause, part of the indictment in which was thus read by him.
Bill of exceptions No. 3 is lengthy and in question and answer form. Our decisions are unaminous in rejecting such bills of exception. Bill No. 4 was refused by the court because same was not correct, and no effort was made to substitute a bystanders' bill. Bill No. 5 was to the refusal of a special charge seeking to have the jury instructed that they could not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGee v. State
...an accused may successfully raise such question for the first time on the motion for new trial as attempted here. Cf. Kelly v. State, 99 Tex.Cr.R. 403, 269 S.W. 796. Id. at 930 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Bell v. State, 504 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Crim.App.1974), the indictment was read to the ......
-
Cavazos v. State
...504, 296 S.W. 513; Hernandez v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 159, 8 S.W. 2d 947; White v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 532, 248 S.W. 690; Kelley v. State, 99 Tex.Cr. R. 403, 269 S.W. 796; Thompson v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 440, 63 S.W.2d 849; Blackshear v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 557, 95 S. W.2d 960; Jackson v. ......
-
Sigler v. State, 20915.
...504, 296 S.W. 513; Hernandez v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 159, 8 S.W.2d 947; White v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 532, 248 S.W. 690; Kelley v. State, 99 Tex.Cr.R. 403, 269 S.W. 796; Thompson v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 440, 63 S.W.2d 849; Blackshear v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 557, 95 S.W.2d 960; 20 Amer.Jur., ......
-
Cox v. State
...an accused may successfully raise such question for the first time on the motion for new trial as attempted here. Cf. Kelley v. State, 99 Tex.Cr.R. 403, 269 S.W. 796. It is observed that appellant testified at the trial and the prior convictions were not used for impeachment. In the hearing......