Case ID: sw2d_2/html/0860-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DOWNING v. STATE.
    (No. 11364.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 15, 1928.
    1. Criminal law &wkey;>l 119(2)— Bill of exceptions, not setting out leading questions, asking of which was assigned as error, shows no error.
    In prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquor, bill of exceptions complaining of fact that state’s attorney asked leading questions, not setting out questions, and not showing when or of whom such questions were asked, held not to show error.
    2. Witnesses &wkey;>240(l) — Leading questions are sometimes permissible.
    In criminal prosecution, leading questions are permissible under some circumstances.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;l 120(8) — Bill of exceptions, complaining of admitting liquor in evidence, not showing facts sustaining objections urged against it, held insufficient.
    In prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquor, bill of exceptions complaining of admission in evidence of bottle of liquor because there was no evidence connecting accused with bottle, no label on bottle showing where or from whom it was taken, and because there was no search warrant not showing facts sustaining any of such objections, held insufficient.
    4. Criminal law <&wkey;l09l(4) — Bill of exceptions to refusal to strike evidence from record, not showing that objections were well founded, held insufficient.
    In prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquor, bill of exceptions complaining of refusal to strike from record evidence of city officers, although some objections urged therein would be good, in view of fact that that bill was barren of any showing that they were well founded, was insufficient.
    5. Criminal law <&wkey;l 120(8) — Appellate court may not relieve against hypothetical and unsupported objections to evidence.
    In criminal prosecution, appellate court may not relieve against purely hypothetical and unsupported objections to evidence.
    6. Criminal law t&wkey;l 124(1)— Bill of exceptions complaining of refusal to set aside verdict and grant new trial for reasons set out in motion attached to bill cannot be considered.
    In prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquor, bill of exceptions complaining of re-, fusal to set aside verdict and grant new trial for reasons set out in copy of motion attached to bill cannot be considered on appeal.
    7. Criminal law <&wkey;l114(2) — Bill of exceptions, complaining of all supposed errors during entire criminal prosecution, cannot be considered.
    In criminal prosecution, bill of exceptions complaining of all of supposed errors committed during entire trial cannot be considered.
    Appeal from District Court, Xoung County; E. G. Thornton, Judge.
    W. B. Downing was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Binkley & Binkley, of Graham, for appellant,
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for transporting intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

We find in the record a bill of exceptions complaining of the fact that the state’s attorney repeatedly asked leading questions. None of the questions are set out in the bill, nor does it show when or to whom such questions were asked. Leading questions are permissible under some circumstances. Such a bill shows no error.

Another bill complains of the introduction in evidence of a bottle of liquor; the objection being that there was no evidence connecting the accused with said1 bottle, and that there was no label on the bottle showing where or from whom same was taken, and because there was no search warrant, etc. There is not the slightest semblance of a showing in said bill of the fact that any of these objections were sustained by the facts. It is needless to say that such a bill is insufficient.

Another bill complains-of the refusal of a motion to strike from the recordi the evidence of two witnesses; it being stated as ground of the motion that said witnesses were city officers, and that they went outside the city limits for the purpose of meeting the accused, and that they were not legally authorized so to do, and that they followed the accused from where they located him outside the city limits, and that they tried'to stop him out there, and attempt his arrest without a warrant, and that they had no search war-' rant, and that they shot into his car without reason to believe that he was violating the law. Some of these objections would be good if we had anything before us showing that they were well founded, but the bill is entirely barren of any such showing. We are not authorized to relieve one against purely hypothetical and unsupported objections.

The remaining bill of exceptions complains of the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict and grant him a new trial for reasons set out in the copy of the motion which is attached to the bill. We have often said that a bill of exceptions complaining of all of the supposed errors committed during the entire trial cannot be considered.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed. 
      <§=oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes