Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

91 Tex. Crim. 383

239 S.W 206

Nicholson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1922-03-01

<p>1. —Murder—Evidence—Confessions—Arrest—Statement Found True.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the defendant objected to the testimony of an officer as to what was said and done by defendant at the time he came into the police station because he was under arrest and unwarned, but it appeared from the record that reliance was had in the introduction of such statement that it was found to be true, and conduced to establish the guilt of the accused, the same was admissible.</p> <p>2. —Same—General Reputation—Evidence—Predicate—Practice in Trial Court.</p> <p>Where defendant proved that the deceased’s general reputation was that of a dangerous and violent woman, there was no error in rejecting testimony of a number of witnesses offered by him to prove that deceased had made violent assaults upon them, he having laid no predicate that the accused knew or had been informed of the matters proposed to be given in such testimony at the time of the act charged against him. Following Willis v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep., 142 and other cases.</p> <p>3. —Same—Evidence—Rebuttal—Practice in Trial Court—Discretion of Court.</p> <p>Where defendant objected to certain evidence introduced by the State after the defense had rested, because it was not in rebuttal, held, that this matter was largely within the discretion of the court, and in the absence of injury shown, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>4. —Same—Rehearing—Bill of Exceptions—Practice on Appeal.</p> <p>Where, upon motion for rehearing, complaint is made because this court declined to consider a bill of exceptions taken to some remarks of the trial court, which bill was refused, for the reason, as stated by the trial judge, that no exception was taken to any statement made by him, and a controversy arose between the trial judge and attorneys as to whether certain matters occurred, same cannot be settled by this court, and the proper procedure is, where the trial judge denied the occurrence, this court must be governed thereby, as presented by bill of exceptions in the record.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 1983

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1922-03-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 On Rehearing.

¶2 March 5, 1922.

HAWKINS, Judge.

¶3 —We have carefully examined appellant’s " . motion for rehearing. There is no question in our minds but that we reached the correct decision on the issues presented.

¶4 Complaint is made because we declined to consider a bill of exceptions taken to some remark of the court. The bill was refused by the trial judge for the reason, as stated, that no exception was taken to any statement made by him. It is asserted in appellant’s motion that the bill was mailed to the judge, and it was not known to appellant’s attorney that the bill had been refused until it was discovered by him with such endorsement on it after the record was filed in this court. A controversy arising between the trial judge and attorneys as to whether certain matters did or did not occur cannot be settled Tpy us in the state we find the record upon this point. We are bound by the bill as we find it. We have had occasion recently to state our views with reference to matters of this kind in Jones v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep. 6, 229 S. W. Rep. 865; Hunt v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep. 89, 229 S. W. Rep. 869, and Donohue v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep. 541, 236 S. W. Rep., 86; (opinion Jan. 11, 1922). In the latter case we suggested the proper procedure where the trial judge denied the occurrence of the matter which counsel asserted.

¶5 The ipotion for rehearing is overruled.

¶6 Overruled.

/91/texcrim/383 · .json · Public domain