Case ID: sw_277/html/1066-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BERRY, J. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ANDERSON v. STATE.
    (No. 9465.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 11, 1925.)
    1. Crimina!,1 iaw t&wkey; 1160 — Granting or refusing new trial held to present issue of fact for tria! court.
    Granting or refusing new trial held to present issue of fact for trial court.
    2. Indictment and information <&wkey;>l 10(31) — Indictment, charging transportation of intoxicating liquor in language of statute, held sufficient.-
    Indictment, charging transportation of intoxicating liquor in language of statute, was sufficient without alleging that it was “knowingly” transported.
    3. Witnesses <&wkey;>39-3(2) — Accused held not entitled- to have stenographer’s notes on trial of his witness as juvenile introduced in evidence.
    That state proved by testimony of trial judge that accused’s witness A. had made statements to trial judge when A. was tried as juvenile, which contradicted A.’s testimony for accused, held, not to entitle accused to have stenographer’s notes in trial of A. admitted- in evidence, where A.’s conversation with trial judge was at court’s bench, and did not refer to testimony in open court, and A; did not testify as juvenile.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appéal from' District Court, Harrison County; P. O. Beard, Judge.
    ■ Joe Anderson was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, ánd he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Hughes & Monroe, of Dallas, and F. M. Scott, of Marshall, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

The appellant was convicted in the district court of Harrison county for the offense of transportation of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years.

By appellant’s bill of exceptions No. 1 |he complains at the action -of the court in refusing Mm a new trial because of tbe misconduct of tbe jury. Testimony was beard on tbis question and is preserved in tbe record. An examination of tbis testimony convinces us tbat tbe trial court did not abuse bis discretion in refusing a new trial be-cause of sucb alleged misconduct. Tbe issue was one of fact, and there is nothing in tbe record sufficient to convince us tbat tbe trial court in any manner abused his discretion in deciding tbis question contrary to appellant’s contention.

Tbe special charge offered by tbe appellant was, in our opinion, fully covered by tbe court in bis main charge to, tbe jury. We perceive no error in tbe court’s action in refusing to quash tbe indictment. We think tbe same charges an offense against tbe law of tbis state and is in tbe language of tbe statute denouncing tbe offense of transporting intoxicating liquor. We know of no decision tbat requires tbe state to allege in an indictment tbat liquor is knowingly transported.

We are also unable to agree with appellant’s contention tbat tbe court erred in refusing to permit him to offer in evidence tbe stenographer’s notes, showing all of tbe testimony and remarks of tbe court in the case of State of Texas v. Austin, which was a juvenile bearing, held to determine tbe age of tbe said Austin, who was held on tbe charge, of transporting liquor as a principal with tbe appellaht herein. Briefly stated, it is the appellant’s contention tbat, because tbe state used tbe trial judge in tbis case as-a witness, and proved by him tbat Austin ^nade statements to him at tbe time be was tried as a juvenile, which statements contradicted tbe testimony given by Austin while testifying for tbe appellant in tbis case, that tbe appellant was therefore entitled to introduce in evidence tbe stenographer’s notes taken on tbe trial of Austin’s case. The court qualified tbis bill by stating tbat tbe state offered no testimony concerning statements made by Austin to tbe court at tbe juvenile bearing, but that tbe state did offer the testimony of tbe trial judge to impeach tbe testimony of Austin on tbis trial, which testimony of the trial judge showed tbat tbe testimony was a conversation that be bad with Austin at tbe court’s bench, and did not in any manner refer to any testimony offered at tbe bearing in open court to determine whether the said Austin was a juvenile. Tbe court further certifies in bis qualification of the bill that Austin did not even testify at bis hearing as a juvenile, and tbat therefore the testimony offered in the trial of Austin’s case as a juvenile was irrelevant and immaterial.

We-think, tinder the qualification of tbe court, tbat bis ruling was correct. Tbe facts are entirely sufficient to support tbe verdict, and', finding no error in tbe record, it is our opinion that tbe judgment should be in all things affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

Tbe foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by tbe judges of tbe Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by tbe court. 
      <®=5>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes