Case ID: sw_298/html/0431-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BAKER, J. MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RAMOS v. STATE.
    (No. 10962.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 1, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 19, 1927.
    1. Robbery <&wkey;23(I) — Admitting evidence that size, build, and features of person who held witness up were same as those of defendant, held not reversible error, regardless of previous testimony and form of question. ■
    In prosecution for.robbery with firearms, permitting state’s witness to testify that size, build, and features of person who held him up were same as those of defendant, was not reversible error, on grounds that such witness had previously testified that night was dark, and he could not recognize man who robbed him, and that siich question was leading and suggested answer.
    2. Witnesses <&wkey;337(5.) — Admitting proof by cross-examining defendant, prosecuted for robbery, that indictment for another and different felony was pending against him, held proper.
    In prosecution for robbery with firearms, permitting state to prove by cross-examining defendant that indictment for another and different felony was pending against him was not error.
    3. Witnesses <&wkey;337(5) — Defendant may be cross-examined as to other charges involving moral turpitude pending against him, to affect his credibility.
    Defendant in criminal prosecution may be cross-examined as to other charges of felonies or misdemeanors involving moral turpitude pending against him, to affect his credibility as witness.
    4. Criminal law &wkey;>713 — District attorney’s addressing jurors by name in closing argument held improper, but not reversible error.
    In prosecution for robbery with firearms, district attorney’s addressing jurors by name in closing argument, while improper, did not constitute reversible error.
    5. Criminal law <&wkey;I064(I) — Motion for new trial containing 11 paragraphs, including order overruling it and notice of appeal, held insufficient to show grounds relied on for reversal.
    In prosecution for robbery with fire arms, motion for new trial containing 11 paragraphs, including order overruling it and notice of appeal, held insufficient to apprise appellate court of particular paragraphs or grounds therein on which defendant relied for reversal.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    6. Criminal law <$=51028 — To review rulings of court, they should be challenged when< made, and bills of exceptions preserved (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 667).
    Under Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 667, and civil statutes to which it refers, to review on appeal rulings of court complained of in motion for new trial, they should have been challenged at time rulings were made, and bills of exceptions should be preserved.
    7. Criminal law <&wkey;>l090(I9‘) — Motion for new trial cannot be made substitute for bill of exceptions.
    Motion for new trial cannot be made substitute for bill of exceptions.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Reeves County; Ben Randals, Judge.
    Mateo Ramos was convicted of robbery with firearms, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. E. Starley, of Pecos, and Jno. B. Howard, of El Paso, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was convicted of robbery with firearms, and his punishment assessed at 12 years in the penitentiary.

It was the theory of the state that the appellant, on or about the night of September 15,1925, in the town of Pecos, and in company with another Mexican, drew a pistol upon the prosecuting witness, Will Smith, a negro, robbed him of a watch and some money, and then shot the said witness just as he was leaving the scene of the robbery. The appellant’s defense was that of an alibi.

The record contains 5 bills of exception.

In bill No. T complaint is made to the action of the court in permitting the state to prove by the prosecuting witness that the size, build, and features of the person who held him -up were the same as those of the appellant. Appellant contends that said testimony was inadmissible, because the witness had previously testified that it was a dark night and that he could not recognize the man who robbed him, and further contends that-the question was leading and suggested the desired answer. The objection raised to this testimony went more to the weight than to the admissibility of same, and the contention to the effect that the question was leading, if true, is not of such a nature as would authorize this court to reverse the case.

Bill No. 2 complains of the action of the court in permitting the state to prove by appellant on cross-examination that there was another and different felony indictment pending against him. The appellant contends that this testimony was prejudicial and inadmissible. We are not in accord with this contention. It has been the uniform holding of this court for many years that a defendant may be interrogated on cross-examination relative to other charges of felonies or misdemeanors involving moral turpitude pending against him, for the purpose of affecting his credibility as a witness.

Bills 3 and 4 complain of the action of the district attorney in addressing two of the jurors by name in his closing argument, stating in effect that, unless the jury did their duty, robberies would be - encouraged and some good citizen would be the next victim. It is contended -by appellant that the attorney’s action in personally appealing to the jurors was inflammatory and prejudicial. These bills, as presented, show no reversible error. This court has heretofore held that such a practice was improper, but we know of no decisions, and are cited to none by appellant, where this court has ever held that the mere addressing of a juror by name was reversible error. We are furthermore of the opinion that such a practice is more' likely to be detrimental than beneficial to the state, in that the balance of the jurors might be inclined to resent such conduct upon the part of the district attorney in appealing diractiy to certain jurors and ignoring the remainder.

In bill No. 5 is set out in full the amended motion for new trial, embracing 11 paragraphs, and there is included an .order of the court overruling same and the notice of appeal to this court. This bill is multifarious and insufficient to apprise this court specifically of what particular paragraphs or grounds in the motion the appellant relies on for a reversal, and is contrary to the doctrine announced by this court in Nugent v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 273 S. W. 598, and Kitchen v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 439, 276 S. W. 259. Such a bill adds nothing to the exception and notice of appeal set out in the order of the court overruling said motion.

Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER OURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judgés of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

The document designated as bill of exceptions No. 5 was in fact a motion for new trial. It contains 11 subdivisions complaining of various matters occurring upon the trial. To’invoke a review on appeal of the rulings of the court of which complaint is made in the present motion for new trial, they should have been challenged at the time the rulings were made, and bills of exceptions preserved as required by article 667, C. C. P. 1925, and the civil statutes to whicb it refers. A motion for new trial cannot be made the substitute for a bill of exceptions . Many announcements of this law will be found in 2 Vernon’s Tex. C. C. P. 1925, p. 362, note 22. Among them will be mentioned Morse v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 153, 201 S. W. 1158; Watson v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 189, 220 S. W. 329; Wilson v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 538, 223 S. W. 217; Reid v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 364, 226 S. W. 408; Claybrook v. State, 95 Tex. Cr. R. 88, 252 S. W. 766; Madsen v. State, 95 Tex. Cr. R. 439, 254 S. W. 955; Flowers v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 253, 265 S. W. 387.

Deeming the other matters to whch the motion for rehearing relates properly decided and sufficiently discussed in the original hearing, further reference to them is omitted.

The motion is overruled. 
      &wkey;>For other cases see same topiq and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     
      @=For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in. all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes