Pennell v. State, 28881
| Decision Date | 13 March 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 28881,28881 |
| Citation | 299 S.W.2d 699,164 Tex.Crim. 401 |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Parties | H. T. PENNELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
[164 TEXCRIM 402] J. A. Collier and Arnold H. Krichamer, Houston, for appellant.
Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is practicing medicine without a license; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.
In view of our disposition of this case, a recitation of the facts will not be deemed necessary.
The mother of the three-year-old child to whom the appellant administered shots of penicillin was asked this question by State's counsel: 'After you took your child to this defendant, do you know of your own knowledge whether she got worse or better?' The witness answered: 'She got worse.' Appellant's counsel objected and moved the court to withdraw the question and answer from the jury's consideration. The objection and the motion were overruled.
Since Germany v. State (1911), 62 Tex.Cr.R. 276, 137 S.W. 130, this Court has held that in a prosecution of this nature the harmful of beneficial effects of the treatment are not admissible on any issue.
In the relatively recent case of McCabe v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 214 S.W.2d 462, 463, we said:
See also Larson v. State, 106 Tex.Cr.R. 261, 285 S.W. 317, and Robertus v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 370, 45 S.W.2d 595.
In view of another trial, attention is directed to appellant's bill of exception No. 1. It certifies that immediately after announcements a jury list was furnished appellant's counsel and the prospective jurors were ordered by the court to 'retire to another room in another part of the Criminal Courts Building outside the presence of and outside the hearing of said court and where the said prospective jurors were to be examined by the Assistant District Attorney and counsel for the defendant for the purpose of selecting a jury to try said case.' It certifies further that the State's counsel,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Patterson
...receive verdict should have rendered conviction null and void); Bright v. State, 306 S.W.2d 899, 900-901 (1957); Pennell v. State, 164 Tex.Crim. 401, 299 S.W.2d 699, 700 (1957) (error for judge to absent himself from courtroom during voir dire). The proposition that a judicial proceeding wi......
-
Williams v. State , No. 06-07-00158-CR (Tex. App. 6/10/2008)
...in full charge of all proceedings at all stages of the trial, none of which should be conducted in his absence." Pennell v. State, 164 Tex. Crim. 401, 299 S.W.2d 699, 700 (1957) (temporary absence during jury selection). It was error for the trial judge not to have presided over the offer o......
-
Bright v. State
...the judge's absence. Therefore the bill does not reflect reversible error. The instant case is unlike the recent case of Pennell v. State, Tex.Cr.R., 299 S.W.2d 699, because in that case it was shown by the bill of exception that during the examination of the prospective jurors in the judge......
-
Jimerson v. State
...in the transcript, the question of the absence of the judge during the selection of the jury, which we condemned in Pennell v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 401, 299 S.W.2d 699. Such question is not presented by bill of exception, nor does the record affirmatively reflect that the judge in fact did ......