Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

83 Tex. Crim. 309

203 S.W 904

Coates v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided April 24, 1918

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1918-04-24

<p>1.—Murder—Confession—Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, defendant’s written confession was in compliance with the statutes, the same was admissible in evidence.</p> <p>8.—Same—Change of Venue—Practice on Appeal—Bill of Exceptions— Rule Stated.</p> <p>The order of the trial judge granting or refusing a change of venue will not be revived upon appeal, unless the facts upon which the same was based are presented in a hill of exceptions, properly signed, approved and filed at the term of the court at" which said order was made.</p> <p>3. —Same—Charge of Court—Insanity.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the court submitted together with his own charge a requested instruction, with reference to the condition of the defendant’s mind from the recent use of intoxicants, which covered the law and the facts of the case, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>4. —Same—Charge of Court—Confession.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the court in connection with his own charge, gave a requested charge upon the law as applicable to confessions which properly covered the facts, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>5. —Same—Manslaughter—Charge of Court.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the court gave a proper charge on manslaughter there was no error in refusing a requested charge thereon. Besides, the issue of manslaughter was not in the case under the facts.</p> <p>6. —Same—Instrument Used—Deadly Weapon—Charge of Court.</p> <p>Article 1147, Branch’s Ann. R. C., should only be submitted to the jury where there is an issue as to the deadly character of the weapon used in committing the homicide and where the intention does not evidently appear, and there was no error in failing to submit the provisions of this statute in -the instant ease. Following Ford v. State, 64 Texas Crim. Rep., 14, and other cases.</p> <p>7. —Same—Continuance.</p> <p>Where the application for continuance did not set out the facts expected to be proved, but only general conclusions, there was no error in overruling the same.</p> <p>8. —Same—Special Venire.</p> <p>Where the motion to quash the special venire served upon defendant was too indefinite to he considered, there was no error in overruling the same.</p> <p>9. —Same—Change of Venue—Bill of Exceptions—Practice on Appeal.</p> <p>In the absence of a motion for change of venue and in view of the meagerness of the bill of exceptions, this court can not pass upon testimony offered in support of motion for change of venue.</p> <p>10. —Same—Evidence—Bill of Exceptions.</p> <p>Where the hill of exceptions with reference to rejected testimony as to a fight deféndant had, etc., was altogether -too indefinite, the same can not be considered on appeal.</p> <p>11. —Same—Evidence—Bill of Exceptions.</p> <p>Where the object and purpose of offering certain rejected testimony is not shown in the bill of exceptions, the same cannot be considered on appeal.</p> <p>12. —Same—Evidence—Bill of Exceptions.</p> <p>Where defendant objected to certain testimony because lie was under arrest ■at the time, but the bill of exceptions failed to show the materiality of the testimony and besides the whole matter was withdrawn from the jury, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>13. —Same—Evidence—Defendant’s Declaration in Jail—Rule Stated—Insanity.</p> <p>Proof of statements and acts made and done while the defendant was in confinement or custody, and which is not of a criminative nature in connection with the ease on trial, is admissible on the issue of insanity, whether the defendant is warned or not. Following Burt v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 397.</p> <p>14. —Same—Argument of Counsel.</p> <p>Where the objectionable part of State counsel’s argument was withdrawn by the court and other parts were not of sufficient importance, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>15. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence—Death Penalty.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, and a conviction thereof inflicting the death penalty, the evidence sustained the conviction under a proper charge of the court, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>16;—Same—Change of Venue—Bill of Exceptions—Rule Stated.</p> <p>The statute is imperative that in order to have a motion for change of venue considered; a bill of exceptions must be reserved and the evidence set out therein, and it is not sufficient to set out such testimony in the statement of facts, and in the absence of any showing that appellant was placed in such condition that he could not obtain such bill, etc., the question can not be considered on appeal.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1926

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1918-04-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*317 ON REHEARING.

¶2 May 22, 1918.

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

¶3 At a former day of this term the judgment herein was affirmed. Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing complaining of the opinion in several respects. First he says the court was in error in not reversing the judgment because of the failure to obtain a change of venue. The motion to change venue was not considered, as shown by the original opinion, because the statement of facts was not approved by the judge nor signed by counsel for appellant, and further, because the statement of facts in the purported bill of exceptions was in question and answer form. Appellant refers to the fact that attached to the statement of facts and at the first portion thereof is a statement of facts introduced upon the motion for change of venue, and all of the facts as shown by said statement of facts, and that said statement of. facts was duly signed by counsel for the State and counsel for appellant, and approved by the court on September 29, 1917. There is some testimony with reference to change of venue in the statement of facts. The statement of facts at its termination is signed as stated by counsel and approved by the judge. The evidence in the statement of facts with relation to the change of venue was not reserved in a bill of exceptions as required by the statute, and, therefore, is not noticed. The statute is imperative and has always been so held that in order to have a motion for change of venue considered, a bill of exceptions must be reserved and the evidence set out in the bill of exceptions. It is not sufficient to set out testimony in a statement of facts, but the evidence must be reserved in a bill of exceptions. This is demanded by the statute, and has always been so held. There is nothing stated to show that appellant was placed in such condition that he could not obtain a statement of facts in a bill of exceptions, or a proper bill containing the evidence. Therefore, there is no question that the bill of exceptions could have contained a statement of the facts approved by the judge. What purports to be a bill is not approved by the judge, and it is not sufficient to include the evidence in a general statement of facts. There is no sufficient reason why the court should reconsider this case upon that ground or grant a rehearing.

¶4 Complaint also is made that the court was in error in not sustaining appellant’s proposition that the charge on manslaughter was not sufficient. We hardly deem it necessary to review this matter, but refer to the original opinion for a statement of the condition of the record as to the facts in this connection. The case of Lane v. State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 310, cited by appellant, does not seem to be in point, and it is, therefore, deemed unnecessary to review that case in connection with this record.

¶5 We deem it unnecessary to review or discuss other questions. We are of opinion that the judgment affirming the case was correct.

¶6 The motion for rehearing will be overruled. Overruled.

/83/texcrim/309 · .json · Public domain