Sanders v. State

• Decision Date: 20 November 1907
• Citation: 105 S.W. 803
• Parties: SANDERS v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

105 S.W. 803

SANDERS v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 20, 1907.

Appeal from Smith County Court; J. A. Bulloch, Judge.

Pearl Sanders was convicted of a crime, and appeals. Affirmed.

F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant made a motion to quash the complaint upon the ground, as set out, of the commission of the offense at an impossible date. It is made to appear that the jurat to the complaint was taken by Roy Butler, county attorney, on the 31st day of January, 1906, alleging the offense to have been committed on the 23d of June, 1906, several months after the jurat purports to have been attached to the complaint. It was made to appear to the court that on the 2d day of February, 1907, the complaint was filed alleging the offense to have been committed on the 23d of June, 1906; that the party signing it, Norris, did in fact sign it on the 30th day of January, 1907, and that by mistake he, Roy Butler, as county attorney, used the date 1906, instead of 1907, whereas in truth and in fact it was subscribed and sworn to on the 31st day of January, 1907, and not the 31st day of January, 1906. On this showing the county judge permitted the jurat to be amended, so as to show that the jurat was based on the complaint in January, 1907, instead of January, 1906. This ruling of the county judge was in consonance with the adjudicated cases in this state. See Flournoy v. State, 100 S. W. 151; Allen v. State, 13 S. W. 998. These cases, as we understand them, are in point, and decisive of the question adversely to appellant.

Appellant testified in his own behalf. On cross-examination he was asked, and required to answer in the affirmative, the following question: "Is it not a fact that one John Rountree, now dead, on the occasion of two former trials of cases growing out of the sale of beer from the same box and at same time, testified that he, John Rountree, did not receive any money from Joe Howard for the beer in question, and he, John Rountree, did not deliver said beer to the said Joe Howard, but that you, defendant, delivered it to him; and is it not a further fact that you, defendant, did not take the stand as a witness and deny the said statements of John Rountree?" Exception was reserved, and the bill is qualified by the court as follows: "Defendant did testify in this case, and on former trials. One case was tried, defendant convicted, and appealed; in the other case a new trial was given; and in neither of the former cases did he testify, and all of the cases grew out of sales from the same case, or box of beer,...