Young v. State

<p>1.—Robbery—Reproduction, of Testimony—Examining Court.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of robbery, it was shown that one of the main State’s witnesses had left this State and was beyond the jurisdiction of the court, there was no error in permitting the county attorney who had reduced the testimony of the absent witness to writing during the examining trial of defendant, and who testified upon tne instant trial that to give the details of said examining-court testimony he would have to read the written statement of said witness, which, over the objections of defendant, the court permitted, there was no reversible error. Davidson, Presiding Judge, dissenting.</p> <p>8.—Same—Constitutional- Law—Reproduction of Testimony—Statutes Construed.</p> <p>The contention that the reproduction of testimony under the circumstances defined in Article 834, C. C. P., is violative of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of Texas, Article 1, Section 10, is not well taken. Following Porch v.- State, 179, and other eases.</p> <p>3.—Same—Examining Court Testimony—Statutes Construed—Presumption.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of robbery, one of the main State’s witnesses was shown to be permanently beyond the limits of the State, and all the papers in the examining court were before the court in the instant trial, who permitted a witness to. read from the statement of the absent witness made in said examining court to refresh his memory, there was no error, and the contention that under Articles 300 and 832, C. C. P., that said testimony was not properly reduced to writing as required, was untenable, and it must be presumed that such evidence was secondary and permissible, as such testimony of the absent witness could have been reproduced by oral proof. Following Dunlap v. State, 9 Texas Crim. App., 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 7, and other cases.</p> <p>4. —Same—Evidence—Confessions.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of robbery, the State introduced the confession of the defendant which was in writing and in due form in every respect, to which he objected oh the ground that it was not voluntary, but this issue was submitted in a proper charge to the jury, there was no reversible error. Following Brown v. State, 45 Texas Crim. Rep., 139, and other cases.</p> <p>5. —Same—Rehearing—Reproduction of Testimony.</p> <p>Where appellant, on rehearing, complained that this court committed error in deciding that the court below properly admitted in evidence the written statement of an absent witness made during an examining trial, and who was then beyond the jurisdiction of the court, but the record showed on appeal that the-State’s witness who testified to such reproduction of testimony, testified that he could reproduce it better by reading the notes he had made than by reciting it without said notes, there was no reversible error.</p>