Wright v. State
| Decision Date | 06 May 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 9040.) |
| Citation | 272 S.W. 787 |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Fannin County; H. G. Evans, Special Judge.
Bud Wright was convicted for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Cunningham & Lipscomb, of Bonham, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
Conviction is for manufacturing intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.
The indictment alleged the offense to have occurred on or about the 2d day of December, 1921. The exceptions were not negatived, and the motion to quash the indictment, because of this omission, was overruled. The amendment passed at First Called Session. Thirty-Seventh Legislature (chapter 61 []), made it no longer necessary to negative the exceptions in charging offenses occurring after the amendment became effective on November 15, 1921. Stringer v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 26, 241 S. W. 159; Mullins v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 474, 247 S. W. 285. The court properly overruled the motion to quash, but guarded defendant's rights by instructing the jury that, if the offense was committed before November 15, 1921, a conviction could not be had under the present indictment.
Roy Taylor and Walter Taylor testified to seeing appellant engaged in the manufacture of whisky. Defendant offered no defense save questioning the success of the state in showing that the transaction occurred subsequent to the 15th day of November, 1921. Complaint is made that the state was permitted to prove by Roy Taylor that the district attorney, outside the courtroom, and not in defendant's presence, had shown witness the warrant of arrest for defendant which was dated December 20, 1921, and which also showed when the arrest was made, and that witness had told the district attorney that he knew defendant was arrested within a few days after the alleged offense, and that witness was able to fix the date of the offense by the warrant of arrest and the statement of the district attorney. The conversation between witness and the district attorney would not be admissible, unless it became so by reason of some cross-examination of witness by defendant. But even though improperly received, we see no possible injury to defendant in view of other evidence fixing the date of the offense without reference to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barker v. State
...the reading of the main charge. Article 658, C. C. P. (1925); Roberts v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 492, 269 S. W. 103; Wright v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 291, 272 S. W. 787; Butler v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 228, 288 S. W. 218; Scott v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. R. 376, 292 S. W. 891. Two special reques......
-
Jones v. State
...were presented to the court, as required by article 658, C. C. P. The questions presented are not subject to review. Wright v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 291, 272 S. W. 787. Bill of exception No. 23, as qualified by the court, presents the following occurrence: Appellant filed an application fo......
-
Newby v. State, 37012
...not show that appellant's objections to the charge were presented to the court in writing, as required by Art. 658, V.A.C.C.P. Wright v. State, 100 Tex.Cr.R. 291, 272 S.W. 787; Terrill v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 584, 112 S.W.2d There informal bills of exception are presented by appellant to ce......
-
Boutin v. State, 37513
...because they do not show that the objections to the charge were presented in writing, as required by Art. 658, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. Wright v. State, 100 Tex.Cr.R. 291, 272 S.W. 787; Terrill v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 584, 112 S.W.2d 734; and Newby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 384 S.W.2d 133, decided ......