Case ID: sw_277/html/0141-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BAKER, J. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NORTON v. STATE.
    (No. 9452.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 11, 1925.)
    I. Criminal law <&wkey;>598(2) — Sickness of witness for whom subpoena was not issued held not sufficient to authorize continuance.
    That witness, whom accused did not subpoena, was Sick, and had promised to attend court, was not sufficient' showing of due diligence to authorize continuance.
    2; Criminal law &wkey;>404(4) — Admitting bottle with label showing name of accused, date of seizure, amo.unt, and names of arresting officer and prosecuting witness, held not error.
    In prosecution for illegal sale of intoxicating liquor, admission of bottle with label showing name of accused, date of seizure, amount of 'whisky seized, and names of arresting officer and prosecuting witness was not error, especially where state’s witnesses -fully testified to all such matters.
    
      Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; J. D. Campbell, Judge.
    Jimi Norton was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, and lie appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Blain & Jones, of Beaumont, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Green-ville, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was tried and convicted in the district court of Jefferson courity for the offense of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at one year in the penitentiary.

There are only two bills of exceptions presented in' the record for our consideration. The first bill complains of the action of the court in refusing to continue the case, and the second bill complains of the action of the court in permitting the state to introduce in evidence the whisky sold by the appellant to the prosecuting witness with labels thereon showing the name of the appellant, the date of the seizure, the amount of whisky seized, the name of the arresting officer, the names of the prosecuting witnesses, because same were ex parte declarations made by some unknown person not under .oath, and were calculated to prejudice the jury against’ the defendant.

Said bill of exception No. 1, complaining of the action of the court in refusing to continue the case, does not state sufficient facts from which this court can determine whether the trial court erred in overruling said motion seeking to obtain the testimony of one Olemens, by whom it is alleged that they expected to prove that the whisky in question was bought by the prosecuting witness from another party and not from the ■appellant. The said bill shows, however, that no subpoena was ever had upon him; that it is contended that, on account of his being sick and could not attend court and promised the defendant that he would do so, relieved the appellant of that diligence required 'relative to obtaining a subpoena and having same served. This court has repeatedly held that such a showing is not sufficient to authorize the trial court to continue the case under such circumstances. Boxley v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 334, 273 S. W. 589; Ellington v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 426, 140 S. W. 1104; Cole v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. R. 459, 156 S. W. 929.

Bill of exception No. 2, complaining of the introduction of said bottle of whisky with the indorsements thereon, we think shows no error in the action of the trial court as complained of in said bill, and especially in view of the fact that the record discloses that the state’s witnesses fully testified to all the matters contained on the label' of said whisky and there could have been no possible injury done under such circumstances to the appellant in this case.

After a careful examination of the entire record, we are of the opinion that there is no error shown, and 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. 
      @^s>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes