Wineman v. State
Decision Date | 05 March 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 13059.,13059. |
Citation | 26 S.W.2d 645 |
Parties | WINEMAN v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Tom Green County; J. P. Hill, Judge.
A. E. Wineman, alias R. E. Rollins, was convicted of bigamy, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Anderson & Jones, of San Angelo, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is bigamy; the punishment confinement in the penitentiary for four years.
Appellant married Emma Roessler in the state of Indiana in 1914. He and his wife lived together until June 6, 1922. On the date last mentioned appellant left the state of Indiana with Jessie Belding. They finally came to Texas, where they lived in adultery until appellant married a second time. On September 9, 1928, appellant married Adel Steffens. After coming to Texas appellant had assumed the name of R. E. Rollins. He married Adel Steffens under such assumed name. At the time of his marriage to Adel Steffens in Runnels county, Tex., appellant's first wife was living in the state of Indiana. They had not been divorced and were still legally married. Appellant did not testify in his own behalf, and the testimony of the state's witnesses was not controverted in any manner.
The state offered in evidence the marriage license issued to appellant and his first wife in the state of Indiana. Appellant's name was stated in the marriage license as Edward Wineman, Jr. In the indictment, he was named A. E. Wineman, alias R. E. Rollins. When the marriage license was offered in evidence appellant objected on the ground that there was a variance between the allegation in the indictment as to his name and the name disclosed by the marriage license. Appellant was positively identified by a witness for the state as being the person named in the marriage license. The uncontroverted proof showed that he had married Emma Roessler in Indiana by virtue of the authority contained in said marriage license. The objection was not well taken.
While Jessie Belding was testifying for the state she stated that she knew appellant's first wife, and that she would be able to identify her. Counsel for the state requested that appellant's first wife be brought into the court room for identification by the witness. Appellant objected on the ground that to permit the witness to identify appellant's first wife in the presence of the jury would be tantamount to the use of the wife as a witness against her husband. The objection was overruled, and the wife was brought in and identified by the witness. The matter presents no error. The wife was not used as a witness against appellant, and the mere act on the part of the prosecution in bringing her into court for the purpose of identification was not violative of the statute. Hearne v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 58 S. W. 1009.
Bill of exception No. 3 presents the following occurrence: While Jessie Belding was testifying in behalf of the state she was asked by the district attorney if appellant had a child. Appellant objected on the ground that the testimony expected to be elicited was irrelevant and immaterial, prejudicial, and not germane to any issue in the case. The objection was overruled, and the witness answered in the affirmative. We are unable to tell from the recitals of the bill whether or not the testimony was material. It is observed that Clara Webber, a witness for the state, testified to the same fact without objection on the part of appellant. In the state of the record, the bill fails to manifest reversible error.
It is shown by bill of exception No. 4 that Jessie Belding, a state's witness, testified that appellant's child and her child were kept together by the witness' mother in Indiana. It developed, upon examination by appellant, that the witness received her information from letters received from her mother. The testimony was attacked as being irrelevant, immaterial, and hearsay. The testimony was hearsay, but we are unable to determine from the recitals in the bill whether its reception was harmful to appellant. Clara Webber testified without objection on the part of appellant that appellant's child and Jessie Belding's child were kept together by appellant's first wife in Indiana, and that Jessie Belding's mother often visited the children. Thus, substantially the same testimony was in the record without objection. We are unable to reach the conclusion that reversible error is presented.
Omitting the formal part, we quote bill of exception No. 5: It appears from the bill of exception itself that the witness had testified that appellant had a child in Indiana. As far as the bill reflects the matter, the testimony of which complaint is made may have been relevant and material to some issue in the case. There is nothing in the bill in verification of the truth of the objection that the testimony was irrelevant and immaterial. The mere statement of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bell v. State, 22981.
...here today." The State doubtless followed the procedure herein complained of by virtue of the opinion in the case of Wineman v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 562, 26 S.W.2d 645, 647, from which we "To sustain appellant's contention would be to give too broad an application to the statute in question......
-
Jackson v. State, 20146.
...injury was shown to appellant on this account." See Hearne v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 58 S.W. 1009; also the late case of Wineman v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 562, 26 S.W.2d 645. Appellant's bill No. 4 relates to the argument of the State's attorney wherein he sets out in descriptive words the scene......