Cases followed-Continued.
74. Flagg v. State, 69 Texas Crim. Rep., 1007
75. Floeck v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 314
76. Flores v. State, 82 Texas Crim. Rep., 107
77. Frazier v. State, 18 Texas Crim. App., 442
78. Francis v. State, 233 S. W. Rep., 974
79. Gallaher v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 227
80. Gallegos v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep., 115
81. Gilbert v. State, 85 Texas Crim. Rep., 597
82. Glasser v. State, 233, S. W. Rep., 970
83. Gonzales v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 250
84. Goodman v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep., 188
85. Green v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 540
86. Guoyn v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 287
87. Gusters v. State, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 181
88. Hand v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 431
Hardin v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 561
90.
Hardy v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 289
91. Harold v. State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 157
92. Harrelson v. State, 65 Texas Crim. Rep., 534
93. Hasley v. State, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 44
Heimes v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 420
Hicks v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 438
Hinton v. State, 144, S. W. Rep., 619
97. Huggins v. State, 85 Texas Crim. Rep., 205
98.
Hunnicutt v. State, 18 Texas Crim. App., 498
99. Hunnicutt v. State, 20 Texas Crim. App., 632
100. Hurst v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 378
101. Irving v. State, 73 Texas Crim. Rep., 615
102. Jackson v. State, 48 Texas Crim. Rep., 650
103. Jenkins v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 478
104. Jetty v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 346
105. Johnson v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep., 429
106. Johnson v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep.,
107. Jones v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 330
108. Jones v. State, 85 Texas Crim. Rep., 538
109. Jones v. State, 85 Texas Crim. Rep., 578
110. Jorasco v. State, 6 Texas Crim. App., 238
111. Ker v. U. S., 119 U. S., 421
112. Kerley v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 199
113. Kingslow v. State, 66 Texas Crim. Rep., 430
114. Knight v. State, 84 Texas Crim. Rep., 396
115. Lackey v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 459
116. Lassiter v. State, recently decided
117. Laurence v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 601
118. Lights v. State, 21 Texas Crim. App., 313
120. Lowe v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 316
121. Lunsford v. State, 1 Texas Crim. App., 449
122. Lunsford v. State, 10 Texas Crim. App., 118
123. Mackey v. State, 13 Texas Crim. App., 363
124. Maples v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 171
125. Martin v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 264
126. Mason v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 642
127. Maxwell v. State, 69 Texas Crim. Rep., 248
128.
129. McGee v. State, 37 Texas Crim Rep., 658
McCoy v. State, 25 Texas, 34
130. McGlasson v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 351
131. McGrath v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 42
132 McLaren v. State, 85 Texas Crim. Rep., 31
McGuin v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 497
Merka v. State, 82 Texas Crim. Rep., 568
Merriweather v. State, 33 Texas, 790
Meuly v. State, 26 Texas Crim. App., 274
Middleton v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 307
Cases followed-Continued.
Miller v. State, 45 Texas Crim. Rep., 517
Miller v. State, 81 Texas Crim. Rep., 238
Mireles v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 608
Moore v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 624
Morrison v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 499
143. Morris v. State, 47 Texas Crim. Rep., 420
144. Nelson v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 149
145.
Newman v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 226
146. Nightingale v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 3
Noodlem v. State, 74 Texas Crim. Rep., 611
Norris v. State, 32 Texas Crim. Rep., 172
O'Brien v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 276
150. Peddy v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 550
151. Pettit v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 336
152. Plummer, v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 487
153. Pool v. State, 45 Texas Crim. Rep., 348
154. Potts v. State, 56 Texas Crim. Rep., 43
155. Powell v. State, 13 Texas Crim. App., 244
156. Pratt v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 231
157. Probest v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 608
158. Proctor v. State, 54 Texas Crim. Rep., 259
159. Ramon v. State, 98 S. W. Rep., 872
160. Randle v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 59
161. Reynolds v. State, 82 Texas Crim. Rep., 445
162. Richards v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 400
163. Riojas v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 182
164. Roberts v. State, 17 Texas Crim. Rep., 82
165. Roberts v. State, 44 Texas Crim. Rep., 267
166. Robert v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 133
167. Rodriquez v. State, 79 Texas Crim. Rep., 427
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.to/books/content?id=7_IDAAAAYAAJ&output=html_text&pg=PA679&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&q=editions:HARVARDHJ12N6&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U0k6Q6e0sQYbm56Q069zI8WUREfRg&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=117,849,572,108)
Sanchez v. State, 48 Texas Crim. Rep., 591
Sanders v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 344
Schoennerschdt v. State, 55 Texas Crim. Rep., 638
176. Scott v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 100
Scott v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 133
Shileds v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 418
179. Simmons v. State, 10 Texas Crim. App. 131
180. Simmons v. State, 55 Texas Crim. Rep., 448
181. Simons v. State, 56 Texas Crim. Rep., 339,
Skidmore v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 502
183. Smith, v. State, 67 S. W. Rep., 949
Southern Cotton Press Co., v. Brady, 52 Texas, 527
State v. Duke, 42 Texas, 455
Sweeney v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 373
Thompson v. State, 234 S. W. Rep., 401
188. Todd v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 99
189. Tubb v. State, 55 Texas Crim. Rep., 623
190.
Turner v. State, 61 Texas Crim. Rep., 97
U. S. v. Rauchsher, 119 U. S. Rep., 407
192. Vaughn v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 258
193. Villereal v. State, 61 S. W. Rep., 761
194. Warren v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 599
195. Whitney v. State, 43 Texas Crim. Rep., 197
196. Williams v. State, 45 S. W. Rep., 572
197. Williams v. State, 18 Texas Crim. App., 409
198. Williams v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 523
199. Williams v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 63
200. Wilkerson v. State, 57 S. W. Rep., 961
115, 141, 526
362
361, 486
Cases followed-Continued.
201. Williford v. State, 42 S. W. Rep., 972
202. Willis v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep., 49
203.
Wilson v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 373
204. Woodall, 58 Texas Crim, Rep., 516
205. Woolen v. State, 68 Texas Crim. Rep., 189
205. Wooten v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 428
207. Yelton v. State, 75 Texas Crim. Rep., 38
208 Young v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 621
Young v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 230
210. Zallner v. State, 15 Texas Crim. App., 24
Cases Qualified. See Cases Cited.
Dukes v. State, 22 Texas Crim. App., 792
Cause of death.
Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence showed that the deceased was
cut dangerously a number of times; that defendant was one of the assailants
and that shortly after the occurrence he was seen washing blood from his
knife, there was no error in refusing a requested charge that no evidence
supported the proposition that death ensued by reason of cutting the de-
ceased with a knife. Barnes v. State, 51.
Certified Copy of Venire.
Where defendant insisted on appeal that he was denied the rights ac-
corded him under the Criminal Code, Article 672, 678, and 668, that is, he was
not given the benefit of the mandatory statute requiring that he be served
with a copy of the return on the venire writ one day before the trial,
and that his appointed counsel was not given time to prepare for trial, and
that the two days for filing pleading were not allowed him, but the record
on appeal showed that the defendant had ample time, and in accordance with
the statute, to file any motion he desired, etc., there was no reversible error.
Sanchez v. State, 518.
Certiorari. See Motion for Rehearing.
Challenge for Cause. See Special Venire.
1. Where, upon appeal complaint was made that the State's challenge for
cause to a jury was sustained because he was a witness for the defendant,
but only a character witness, there was no error in the ruling of the court.
Distinguishing Seals v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 138, and other cases.
Gunn v. State, 209.
2. The rule is that to secure a reversal by reason of an erroneous failure
of the trial judge to sustain the challenge of veniremen for cause, the bill of
exceptions must show injury, and where the bill fails to show that error re-
sulted in forcing upon the jury, against defendant's wish an objectionable
juror, there was no reversible error. Following Villereal v. State, 61 S. W.
Rep., 761, and other cases. Sanchez v. State, 518.
Change of Venue. See Affidavit 1; Newspapers on Charge of Venue.
1. Upon the hearing of evidence upon the issue of a change of venue, the
trial court commits no error in enlarging the scope of the hearing to ex-
tend beyond the credibility and means of knowledge of the compurgators,
when it hears evidence as to the existence of prejudice, etc. Following Meuly
v. State, 26 Texas Crim. App., 274, and other cases. Carlile v. State, 1.
2. The application for change of venue may be controverted by an af-
fidavit of some credible-person attacking the credibility of the compurgators
or their means of knowledge, and the court will then determine from the
evidence upon the issue thus made whether the application should be granted;
but the discretion of the court is not arbitrary. Cox v. State, 106.
3. Where, upon trial of rape, it appeared from the record on appeal that
there was such evidence before the court below as to justify him in over-
Change of Venue-Continued.
ruling the motion for change of venue, both in defendant's first and sup-
plementry motions, there was no reversible error. Grace v. State, 329.
4. Where a motion for change of venue upon the ground of prejudice was
prepared and sworn to by the defendant, but compugators were not obtain-
able, the same could not be considered on appeal, and where the record showed
that there was no error in the court's discretion in not changing the venue on
his own motion, there was no reversible error. Sanchez v. State, 518.
Character of Witness. See Challenging for Cause, 1.
Upon trail of murder there was no error in sustaining the objection by
the State to a question by the defense to the State's witness if she had not
had improper sexual relations with men, as this was not permissible; and be-
sides, specific acts of an immoral character with other parties cannot be
shown affecting the credibility of a female witness. Following Bigliben v.
State, 68 Texas Crim. Rep., 530, and other cases. Hays v. State, 355.
Where nothing appeared in the bill of exceptions or the record which
showed that the State, upon cross-examination or a character witness of de-
fendant, had asked her anything reflecting upon the relations of defendant
toward her, or his conduct with her, there was no reason that defendant
should be allowed to go into his personal conduct toward said witness.
Donohue v. State, 541.
Charge of Court. See Abandonment of Difficulty; Accomplice; Age of Fe-
inale; Age of Prosecutrix; Aggravated Assault; Alibi; Apparent
Danger; Approporation; Argument of Counsel; Burden of Proof; Cir-
cumstantial Evidence; Conspiracy, 3, 4; Converse Proposition; Cooling
Time; Corroboration; Defense of Another; Defensive Theory; Exclupa-
tory Statements; Fraudulent Intent; Indecent Familiartiy; Imperfect
Self-Defense; Insanity; Instrument Used: Intent; Intoxicating Liqu-
ors; Limiting Testimony; Manslaughter Misdemeanor; Murder; Neg-
ligent Homicide; Objections to Charge of Court: Other Stolen Prop-
erty: Owner; Peremptory Charges; Practice in Misdemeanor: Practice
in Trial Court; Prima Facie Proof; Principles; Provoking Difficulty;
Reasonable Doubt; Relative Strength; Requested Charge; Right to Go
Armed; Self-Defense; Simple Assault; Statutes Construed; Statutory
Definition; Sum of Money; Theft of Turkeys: Theory of Defense
Venue; Voluntary Confession; Written Charge; Written Objections;
Words nd Phrases.
1. Objections to the charge of the court cannot be considered on appeal,
where the same were made for the first time in motion for new trial. Mosier
v. State, 136.
2. Trial courts should not assume, in the charge to the jury, the truth of
any controverted issue of fact, but should submit all the issues of fact to
the jury for their decision. Stephens v. State, 245.
3. Where the objection to the charge of the court were without merit,
there was no reversible error in overruling them. Carter v. State, 248.
4. Where, upon trial of burglary, the court instructed the jury that cor-
roborating evidence need not be direct and positive, independent of the
testimony of the accomplice, but that proof of such facts and circumstances
as tended to support such testimony, etc., was sufficient. The same was not
on the weight of the evidence. Distinguishing Wisdom v. State, 45 Texas
Crim. Rep., 215, and other cases. Forson v. State, 271.
5. It is true that the word "knowingly" is not included in the Act of the
Legislature, and doubtless, for the court to instruct upon that subject in
every case would be unnecessary; but in a case, like the present one, when
the evidence leaves the question of defendant's knowledge of the accident
in a condition that the solution is a question for the jury, it is incumbent
upon the court, in response to proper exception, to instruct the jury that the
Charge of Court-Continued.
want of knowledge of the accident would excuse the failure to stop and
render aid. Following Vaughn v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 258, and other
cases. Stalling v. State, 310.
6. Where, upon trial of murder, it appeared from the evidence that a
short time before the killing deceased had filed suit for divorce against defend-
ant in connection with which he obtained an injunction restraining her from
interfering with deceased in any manner, there was no error in refusing re-
quested charges on this phase of the case, as the court in his main charge
limited the purpose of said evidence, and placed no limitation or restriction,
because of the injunction being injected, on the question of self-defense.
Ott v. State, 403.
7. Where, upon trial of the illegal practice of medicine, without having
registered in the office of the district clerk a certificate, etc., as required by
Article 750, Penal Code, various criticisms to the charge of the court were
made and requested charges presented, but it appeared from the record that
such changes as suggested would have produced no practical result, there
was no reversible error. Maier v. State, 459.
8. Where, upon trial of adultery by living together, etc., the court's
charge with regard to the character of intercourse necessary, and on the
question of accomplice being in proper form, there was no error in refusing
defendant's requested charges on these points. Cadle v. State, 464.
9. Where defendant's right of self-defense against an attack or threatened
attack on the part of deceased causing reasonable expectation or fear of
death or serious bodily injury was fully submitted in the charge of the court
in the instant case, defendant's rights are fully safe-guarded and there was
no reversible error. Briscoe v. State, 650.
10. Where, upon trial of sale of intoxicating liquors, the evidence showed
that the purchaser of the liquor, who was an accomplice under the law, and
the party who was working for him at the time of the purchase was in no
way interested together in said purchase, but that this other party had
only consumed a part of the liquor after the purchase, the evidence did not
raise the question of accomplice as to the said other party, and there was
no error in the court's failure to charge thereon. Newton v. State, 598.
11. Upon motion for rehearing, this court can see no reason to conclude
that it was in error in sustaining the charge of the court below on cooling
time. McDaniel v. State, 636.
Circumstantial Evidence. See Corpus Delicti, 2; Juxta-Postion; Res Gestae
Rule Stated, 4.
1. Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence showed that the facts and
circumstances proven were in such close relation to the main fact as to
who fired the fatal shot, as to make them equivalent to direct testimony,
there was no error in the court's failure to charge on circumstantial evi-
dence. Following Bass v. State, 59 Texas Crim Rep., 191, and other cases.
Monday v. State, 8.
2. Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence showed that the deceased
was shot, and cut, defendant being one of them, there was no error in the
refusal of the court to charge on circumstantial evidence. Following Colter
v. State 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 284, and other cases. Barnes v. State, 51.
3. Where defendant was charged with murder and convicted of man-
slaughter, and contended that the evidence was wholly circumstantial, but
the record showed on appeal that the deceased had made a dying declaration
that he was shot by the defendant and there was other evidence of a direct
nature, there was no error in refusing a charge upon circumstantial evidence.
Atwood v. State, 112.
4. Where, upon trial of murder and a conviction of manslaughter, the
evidence showed that the defendant could only have been guilty as a principal
upon circumstantial evidence, it was reversible error in the court's failure to
submit a charge on circumstantial evidence. Following Early v. State, 50
Texas Crim. Rep., 344, and other cases. Joyce v. State, 265.
5. Where, upon trial of theft of a certain check with intent to defraud
and appropriate, the evidence was direct and not circumstantial, there was no
|