Case ID: tex-crim_33/html/0568-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George Freeman v. The State.
    
      No. 862.
    
    
      Decided November 21.
    
    1. Continuance — Bill of Exceptions — Practice on Appeal. — The refusal of a continuance will not be considered on appeal, unless a bill of exceptions was taken to the refusal of the court to grant the same.
    2. Witness Indicted for Same Offense. — On appeal it is no ground for reversal that a witness who testified in the case was subsequently indicted for the same crime for -which appellant was convicted.
    3. Indicted Witness — Competency of. — Notwithstanding a party may he indicted for the same offense, he is nevertheless competent to testify in the case in behalf of the State until he is convicted, though he would not be competent to testify in behalf of a codefendant.
    Appeal from the District Court of Polk. Tried below before Hon. L. B. Hightower.
    
      Appellant was indicted for tbe murder of Steve Small, by cutting him witb a knife, and at bis trial was convicted of murder of tbe first degree, tbe penalty being assessed at a life term in the penitentiary.
    There is no statement of facts in tbe record.
    No briefs on file.
   DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder in tbe first degree, bis punishment being assessed at a life term in tbe penitentiary.

A bill of exceptions was not reserved to tbe court’s refusal to grant tbe application for a continuance, hence appellant’s contention in this respect will not be revised.

Nor does it constitute, in this case, ground for reversal that one of tbe witnesses in tbe case was subsequently indicted for tbe same murder of which appellant was convicted. Tbe record does not contain a statement of facts. Tbe court charged fully the law in regard to tbe testimony of accomplices, and it is not verified that tbe witness was in fact indicted, as alleged in tbe motion for a new trial. Whether indicted or not, tbe witness would have been competent to testify in tbe case in behalf of tbe State. Pitner v. The State, 23 Texas Crim. App., 366. Tbe inhibition would apply only when tbe witness is indicted for tbe same offense as tbe accused, and is offered in bis behalf. Code Crim. Proc., art. 731.

Tbe remaining questions can not be revised without tbe evidence, and that is not before us.

We find no error, and tbe judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges all present and concurring.