Miller v. State

• Decision Date: 12 April 1899
• Parties: MILLER v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

50 S.W. 704

MILLER v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 12, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Bell county; John M. Furman, Judge.

Frank Miller, alias W. M. Moore, was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted for burglarizing the house of H. P. Robertson, in Temple, Bell county, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of 12 years; and he appeals.

While the witness Robertson was on the stand he testified that his residence in the city of Temple was burglarized on the night of the 12th of November, 1898, by some one unknown to him; that he was aroused during the night by hearing the noise, and smelled chloroform. Appellant objected to the remark of the witness with reference to chloroform, because he had not qualified himself as an expert on medicines and drugs, and it was his mere opinion. Several other objections were urged. This testimony was clearly admissible. Conner v. State, 6 Tex. App. 455.

The second bill of exceptions was reserved to the action of the court in permitting two witnesses to testify that they found chloroform and a syringe at the house in Waco where defendant boarded or resided. The objection urged is that defendant was not shown to have had any connection with this. The court's statement is explicit that the testimony shows that defendant brought the chloroform and the syringe to the house; that defendant claimed and exercised ownership over same, and that it was found there within four or five days after the burglary in Temple; and that the defendant himself testified that he placed it there, and that it was given him by another negro. The court committed no error in admitting this testimony.

The remaining bill of exceptions is to the action of the court postponing the case, from about 4:15 or 4:30 o'clock in the evening until 9 o'clock the next morning, for the return of the witness Sadberry, who had gone to Waco on the train for his charter of pardon. It is shown by the bill that this witness had been convicted of a felony, and the district attorney, anticipating the introduction of the record of conviction against him, sent the witness to Waco after his pardon. About 3:25 o'clock p. m. witness left for Waco, with the understanding that the case would not be concluded until the following morning, and that he would reach said court on his return during the night some time, and...