Case ID: sw_276/html/0286-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WOOD v. STATE.
    (No. 9298.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 3, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 21, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;>I 122(5) — Bill of exceptions held to present no error as to court’s charge.
    A bill of exceptions, complaining that court failed to charge law applicable to facts, but showing no reason why charge failed, and not setting forth the charge, presents no error.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;>l 168(2) — Case not reversed for asking material questions out of order.
    Court will not reverse a case on ground that questions were asked by state out of proper order, where such questions are material.
    3. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;»236(20) — Evidence held sufficient to support conviction for transporting liquor.
    Evidence that defendant was intoxicated while driving along a public road- in a ear containing liquor, which he attempted to throw out of car on .discovering officers, is sufficient to support a conviction for transporting liquor.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    4. Criminal law <&wkey;>656(8), If66>/2(I2) — Remark of court as to defendant’s application, for suspended sentence held not injurious.
    Remark of court in overruling objection to question by defendant’s counsel that “he filed application for suspended sentence” was not an expression of opinion on an issue in case, and did not injure defendant.
    Appeal from District Court, San Patricio County; T. M. Cox, Judge.
    Jesse Wood was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    H. S. Bonham, of Beeville, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   BATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of San Patricio county of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

There is a bill of exceptions substantially complaining that the court did not charge the law applicable to the facts of this case. 'The bill does not make any showing of reasons why the charge fails, or how it is wrong. No part of the charge is copied in the bill or referred to therein. Manifestly it presents no error. The only other bill of exceptions sets forth appellant’s objection to the state asking him while on the witness stand, “Where did you get that whisky?” The ground of objection appearing is that this question was not in rebuttal of anything that had been brought out upon the redirect examination. Under our practice we do not hold the parties strictly to the propositions of ,. rebuttal, redirect, surrebuttal, etc., examinations. The object of every trial ought to be to arrive at the truth, and, if the questions asked be material to issues arising in the case, this court would not reverse because they were asked in other than what might be considered their proper place in the trial. The facts seem sufficient to support the judgment. Appellant, his wife, another man, and his wife were in a car proceeding along a public road. They had a quantity of whisky in the car. Appellant was intoxicated. When they discovered the officers, appellant and the others began to throw the jugs of whisky out. Appellant told the officers where they had obtained the liquor.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

In view of the fact that appellant pleaded guilty, and that the charge of the court followed the charges customary in such ease, we fail to agree with appellant in his renewed contention that in. his charge the learned trial judge did not apply the law to the facts.

The remark of the'court in overruling an objection to a question by appellant’s counsel, which remark was that “he has filed an application for a suspended sentence,” was not a statement by the court which expressed any opinion of any issue in the case, and we do not see how same could be susceptible of any injury.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      <&wkey;>Kor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes