DocketNumber: No. 17037
Citation Numbers: 127 Tex. Crim. 318, 76 S.W.2d 138
Judges: Lattimore
Filed Date: 11/21/1934
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
Conviction for robbery; punishment, five years in the penitentiary.
Bill of exceptions No. 2 complains of the refusal of the court to allow appellant’s counsel to ask the prosecuting witness if he peddled whisky at said place of business. The question was clearly improper, but in any event it appears from the bill of exceptions that witness answered in the negative.
Bill- of exceptions No. 3 complains of the refusal of the court to allow appellant’s counsel to ask the prosecuting witness if it was not a fact that some boys had come out there and took a slot machine, and that he was advised by certain people to claim they took some money off of him in order that a valid indictment could be returned into court. The State objected to the question as being vague, indefinite, uncertain and too general, and named no person or time. We see no error in the action of the court in sustaining the objection.
Bill of exceptions No. 4 complains of the refusal of a special charge, the substance of which was that even though appellant did take the slot machine from the possession of Mr. Grinder, he could not be convicted unless the jury believed from the evidence that he also took other property. Appellant seems to proceed upon the assumption that the taking of a slot machine by robbery would constitute no offense. He also seems to overlook the fact that by the undisputed testimony in the record it is shown that appellant took money from Grinder at said time and place. There is no averment in the indictment that any slot machine was taken. The evidence makes out the State’s case, and believing the matters complained of in the bills of exception to present no error, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.