Monroe v. State
| Decision Date | 25 June 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 22577.,22577. |
| Parties | MONROE v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Brazos County; W. S. Barron, Judge.
J. T. Monroe was convicted of wife and child desertion, and he appeals.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
J. G. Minkert, of Bryan, for appellant.
Spurgeon E. Bell, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Conviction is for wife and child desertion; punishment one year in the penitentiary.
The indictment was returned on September 18, 1941. It contained two counts. The first charged desertion of the wife, who was alleged to be in necessitous circumstances. The second charged desertion and failure to support the children. The offense is alleged to have occurred on or about January 1, 1941. For some reason appellant was not tried until February 24, 1943, one year and seven months after being indicted. In February, 1942, appellant's wife had secured a divorce. At the time of trial she admitted that she was living with another man without the formality of a marriage. It was a sharply contested issue whether this man or appellant was the father of the youngest child named in the indictment.
The only bill of exception complains because the ex-wife of appellant was permitted to testify that from January 1, 1941, until February 24, 1943, appellant had not contributed to the support of her or the children except some small sums paid her before the indictment was returned. Appellant objected to the evidence because it was not permissible to prove any acts of commission or omission against appellant after the date of the return of the indictment, and further, because the ex-wife had secured a divorce from appellant long before the date of the trial. The indictment would furnish no basis for proving an offense committed by appellant after the indictment had been returned into court. It is true the trial court in his charge told the jury if appellant did the things alleged "on or about the 1st day of January, 1941," they should convict, but it is obvious that the evidence complained of was harmful. Cowan v. State, 69 Tex. Cr.R. 614, 155 S.W. 214; Kincaid v. State, 8 Tex.Cr.App. 465; Clement v. State, 22 Tex.App. 23, 2 S.W. 379; McCoy v. State, 3 Tex.App. 399.
In view of another trial we call attention to the following situation: The prosecution was under Art. 602, P.C., Vernon's Ann.P.C. art. 602, which makes it a felony for a husband (a) to wilfully desert his wife who is in necessitous circumstances, and (b) for a father to wilfully desert or fail to support his child who is under 16 years of age. While one of the punishments allowed is that ordinarily affixed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drake v. State
... ... State, supra, it "would not feel called upon to raise the question on its own motion;" ... Page 945 ... and while it did notice a violation in Monroe v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 239, 172 S.W.2d 699 (1943), because "appellant has made no complaint of the erroneous procedure ... we do not base a reversal thereon," id., 172 S.W.2d at 700. One reason for requiring some character of objection in the trial court was stated in Banks, supra, 246 S.W. at ... ...
-
Ex parte Siller
... ... Sam D. Millsap, Jr., Dist. Atty. and Edward F. Shaughnessy, III, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State ... Before the court en banc ... CLINTON, Judge ... This is an ... State, 552 S.W.2d 478 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Beaupre v. State, 526 S.W.2d 811 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Ex parte Easley, supra; Monroe v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 239, 172 S.W.2d 699 (1943); Hufstetler v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 175, 33 S.W.2d 461 (1930); Hill v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 635, ... ...
-
Garcia v. State
...of only one count. Beaupre v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 526 S.W.2d 811; Easley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 490 S.W.2d 570; Monroe v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 239, 172 S.W.2d 699; Wimberley v. State, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 249 S.W. 497. V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Sections 3.01 through 3.04, have abolished this rule wi......
-
Holcomb v. State
...The purported authorities for this latter statement are Wimberley v. State, 94 Tex.Crim. 1, 249 S.W. 497 (1923), and Monroe v. State, 172 S.W.2d 699 (Tex.Cr.App.1943). The portion of Wimberley, supra, quoted below, states that this Court is not required to raise the issue of two felony conv......