DocketNumber: No. 14301.
Citation Numbers: 39 S.W.2d 47, 118 Tex. Crim. 64
Judges: HAWKINS, JUDGE. —
Filed Date: 5/6/1931
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
Conviction for burglary; punishment, ten years in the penitentiary.
The testimony for the state seems to conclusively establish appellant's guilt. There being no contention in appellant's brief as to the sufficiency of the testimony, we see no need for setting same out at any length.
The state introduced one Churchill, a self-confessed accomplice, and reliance was largely had upon his testimony for conviction. Bill of exception No. 3 complains of the overruling of appellant's objection to the testimony of this witness, made upon the ground that the witness was at the time of this trial an escaped convict from the penitentiary of Texas, and that he had never been pardoned. Under the provisions of our law, article 708, C. C. P., as amended by chapter 13, General Laws, First Called Session, 39th Legislature, as construed in Underwood v. State, 111 Tex.Crim. Rep.,
Neither the bill of exception complaining of this matter nor the record otherwise shows when the witness Churchill was convicted. We said in Spann v. State,
Appellant's bill of exception No. 2 presents objection to a quoted portion of the testimony of Mr. Heare. The objection was that the witness was testifying as to an invoice that he did not know was correct, and that his testimony was secondary evidence. There is nothing in the bill by *Page 66 which this court may be apprised of the soundness or truth of the facts thus stated as objections. Such bill is of no avail.
Bills of exception Nos. 5 and 6 complain of the refusal of the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. We perceive no error in the refusal of the requested instruction. Bill of exception No. 7 complains of the refusal of a special charge instructing the jury that the witness Churchill was incompetent. This charge was correctly refused.
There were no exceptions to the charge of the court.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Parrish v. State , 134 Tex. Crim. 545 ( 1938 )
Pearson v. State , 123 Tex. Crim. 184 ( 1933 )
Herrington v. State , 129 Tex. Crim. 567 ( 1935 )
Flores v. State , 122 Tex. Crim. 405 ( 1932 )
Lee v. State , 125 Tex. Crim. 622 ( 1934 )
Riles v. State , 141 Tex. Crim. 637 ( 1941 )