Case ID: sw_289/html/1008-01.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

JOHNSON v. STATE.
    (No. 10468.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 5, 1927.)
    1. Indictment and information 176 — Testimony, showing defendant carried pistol on different date than that laid in complaint held ‘admissible.
    In prosecution for carrying pistol, introduction of testimony showing that defendant carried pistol on date different from one laid in complaint held not error, in absence of request of state for election as to date on which it relied for conviction.
    2. Criminal law <@=*l 119(4) — Bill of exceptions, complaining of state’s attorney’s argument, should show how it was improper, to be available as error.
    Bill of exceptions, complaining of argument of state’s attorney, wherein he told jury that defendant had pleaded guilty in justice court for rudely displaying pistol, should show how or in what manner remark was improper, to be available as error.
    3. Criminal law <@=*1091 (2) — Bill of exceptions, complaining of introduction of issue of defendant’s general reputation, not stating whether it was introduced in argument or testimony, held without merit.
    Bill of exceptions, stating that during trial state’s counsel brought in issue the general reputation of defendant as to whether he was good and law-abiding citizen, but which did not show whether this was done in argument or by testimony, held without merit.
    4.Criminal law <@=*875(4) — Verdict finding defendant “gilty” of carrying pistol held sufficient.
    In prosecution for carrying pistol, verdict finding defendant “gilty,” held sufficient.
    Appeal from Ft. Bend County Court; W. I. McFarlane, Judge.
    George Johnson was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    F. X. Joerger, of Rosenberg, and C. H. Ohemosky, of Houston, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and I-tobt. M. Byles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction in county court of Ft. Bend county of unlawfully carrying a pistol; punishment, fine of $150, and 60 days in the county jail.

There seems no question, according to state witnesses, that appellant was found on a public road in possession of a pistol.

Appellant complains of the introduction of testimony, showing that, at a date different from the one laid in the complaint, he was seen by a witness carrying a pistol. The state is not bound to prove the commission of the offense upon the date charged, but may make its proof relative to a different date if within the period of limitation. For aught we know from the bill of exceptions presenting this complaint, the state was relying for conviction upon proof of the possession b<y appellant of a pistol on the date of the carrying therein referred to. No request seems to have been made of the state for an election.

A bill of exceptions complains of the argument of the state’s attorney, wherein he said to the jury that appellant had pleaded guilty in the justice court for rudely displaying a pistol at the time he had the difficulty with the complaining witness. We have no means of ascertaining from the bill of exceptions referred to how or in what manner the remark was improper. Appellant may have testified to this fact upon the trial, or it may have been shown by the testimony of some other witness.

By another bill of exceptions it is stated that during the trial the state’s counsel brought in issue the general reputation of defendant as to whether he was a good and. law-abiding citizen, We have carefully examined the bill, but are unable to determine whether it is intended to state that this was done by the state in argument or by some testimony. We observe that the objection does not seem to be leveled at the introduction of any testimony; neither is there any language set out that was used by the state in the argument, nor was there any special charge asked regarding the matter. We are unable to see any merit in this bill. There is a complaint because tbe jury in its verdict found tbe defendant “gilty.” There is nothing in tbe complaint.

Binding no error in tbe record, tbe judgment will be affirmed. 
      <gzxoFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ali Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes