Case ID: sw_288/html/0225-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BAKER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HARGRAVES v. STATE.
    (No. 10268.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 3, 1926.)
    Witnesses &wkey;>370(2) — Exclusion of evidence of trouble between defendant’s and prosecuting witness’ families held not error, where prosecuting witness was not involved in trouble.
    In prosecution for robbery, exclusion of defendant’s brother’s testimony that there was trouble between defendant’s family and prosecuting witness’ family held not error, where witness had testified that prosecuting witness was not involved in trouble.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
    Henry Hargraves was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Earle Adams, Jr., of Houston, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was convicted in the district court of Harris county for the offense of robbery, and his punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

This is a companion case to the case of Hemby v. State, No. 10269, 286 S. W. 1099, decided by this court on October 6, 1926.

The record contains three bills of exception, in which complaint is made to the refusal of the court to permit the appellant to show by his brother, Joe Hargraves, that he knew of trouble between the Bird family and the Har-graves family. The court’s qualifications on two of said bills fully show that said witness testified that the prosecuting witness, Jim Bird, was not involved in this trouble. These bills, as presented, show no error.

After a careful examination of tlie entire record and failing to find any error therein, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court. 
      other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes