Case ID: sw_179/html/1166-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PRENDERGAST, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BACKUS v. STATE.
    (No. 3741.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 3, 1915.)
    1. Criminal Law &wkey;>1092 — Record—Bills ox? Exception — Approval by Trial Court.
    Bills of exception cannot be considered on appeal, where the trial court refused expressly to approve them.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2829, 283A-2861, 2919; Dec. Dig. @ax>1092.]
    2. Criminal Law <&wkey;082 — Impeachment — Arrests for Misdemeanors and Felonies.
    The state on the cross-examination of accused filing a plea for suspension of sentence on conviction may show that he had been repeatedly arrested for various misdemeanors and once for felony.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2500, 2501; Dee. Dig. <&wkey;> 982.]
    Appeal from District Court, El Faso County ; W. D. Howe, Special Judge.
    E. C. Backus was convicted of knowingly having in his possession a forged instrument with intent to pass the same, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Weeks & Yowell, of El Paso, for appellant. C. O. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Appellant was indicted on two counts — -the first for forgery; the other for knowingly having in his possession a forged instrument with intention to pass the same. Only the second count was submitted, and he was found guilty on that count, and his punishment assessed at the lowest prescribed by law.

Appellant claims that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. We have carefully read the statement of facts, and, in our opinion, the testimony was sufficient to sustain the conviction, and we would not be authorized to reverse the case on that ground.

There is in the record what might otherwise be considered bills of exception, but the court refused expressly to approve them. Hence they cannot be considered.

There is one which complains that the court permitted the state to ask him and required him to answer on cross-examination that he had been repeatedly arrested for various misdemeanors and once' for a felony. The court, in approving the bill, expressly states that the appellant did not except when he overruled his objections to that character of testimony. The appellant filed his proper plea seeking the suspension of a sentence in case he was convicted. Even if he had excepted to the action of the court, it would present no error, because on his plea for suspended sentence said testimony was admissible. Williamson v. State, 187 S. W. 360; Conatser v. State, 170 S. W. 314.

The judgment is affirmed.