Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-11-17
The Supreme Court and Court Of
Criminal Appeals.
a CASE GAN NOT BE RE.OPENED
After the Argument Has Been Con-
cludcd-Dcnth Sentence Az
hrmcd--Othcr Decisions.

charge OF murder was convicted Of
murder OF the iirst degree gnd hls
judgment Of the lower court he prose-
cuues this appesn--lieyersed and re-
mnnded.
Thsre Is but one question presented in
the record In this case which requires
consideration by us. II appears from the
bill OF exceptions that after tho evidence
FOR the state and appellant Ind been
introduced, and after the arguments Of
the district attorney and appellants
counsel Ind beon closed and the judge
had read his charge 10 tie jury. the court
permitted The case 10 be re.openod and
allowed evidence 10 be introduced 10y
the STATE TO prove that the name Of th"
alleged murdered person was Lou VII
Hams as charged In the Indictment, and
that thereafter tho court allowed the
state and appellant fifteen minutes each
for argument before the Jury ON the new
evidence offered. As stated. the appellant
objected 10 this aud saved his iii OF
exceptions.
The article of our codo Of criminal pro-
egdute relating 10 argument aud the in-
PRODUCTION OF evidence Gttcr argument
has begun arc as follows: Article VA re-
silntcs tie proceedings on the trial of tho
case, raquirra the testimony ou the part
VI the state 10 be nrst introduced. then
testimony on tho part Of defendant aud
raDuttinp testimony on tho part OF state
and Defendant may be offered. Mlicl'
dll authorizes the court TO rrEAlt.e tHt
Jha States counsel auul hay" iha
ilpht To mike the oonClud,nE address
to the jury. Artlclo GbS limits the power
VI tho court to- rratrirt no argument 10
a lDas number Of addresses tuuu two uil
each ai1.. Article tu require. ing ''hL
after tho argument OF nnj criminal ''N7
nas boon concluded, IN all felony uufr1
10 deliver. I'd written charge 20 the jury,
Article Gii iuihorlZfs tho Jury, when tu.y
llaI;roo hs 10 tnc staJemani ~ amy par
uruiar witness upon applying u t4v
court. 70 have such witness again brought
lnon tlia paTtiotlar poinl at iluaiyrm ~.
and IN such cHse he HhHll Doe iur.turt Zoo
make hia Hla,en@pt N Ihr lanEu't' E l.1
Article CO.. which la the oul. tHtut.
who'll authorized the court e. allow le'ti
lnony 10 be introduced after the evidence
mas closed ana The argument Wa nrrHu,
reads IA follows. "Tln court shall allow
testimony 10 bo introduced at ANY time
Guided II IL appear that it o. uoO 1vurf
10 d due administration 81 lufucu. THU
trin courts In order 10 intrdur, trarlmon'
.,fter the argument or % cause has begun
lfevitt va STATE, N On. APP. tOl.
And this npppnrt, to have been tie pr1e-
tiee before he adoption uf me code. s,r
Nuu Va Rintp. iq 'TcNns uspurta. 500. and
II bns bs,,n uniformly Scid that No adm f.
Mon of tsgtimonv after me argument mas
Hegun and i"for- Il mas been closed 10 In
the sound discretion ~ mo till Judge,
and mis- discretion will not hp rrviO.l
uuipsg N clearly appears 90 have been
tb1ssd tTimirook ~ stntcIs a. App.u.
Ne ars not aware, though We have made
a thorptlFh roarafch of tto authorities.
maj IN. Guestlon urrsCutpd IN thla cnae
ms ever Ge.n bef6re thia court, and 30
mo construction OF article Gal. Code ut
r'r,mtnsl Procedure, In this regard ~ "A
new ouratiofl with US We hnyN looked az
III. dsolaious Of other States 10 see what
urht they ahad on tue question.
Tn Alninuru Wa Nna one rlRe only, IN
ybirb ia is FtAlt.l Tint il h. Within Tie
IigIr.tl8p ~ tGr trlsi court ta allow eve
irntr OF venue after the close Of the
eriptmcut II IL flmuly 20 held without
nuy a4oninF or citation OF authorities
ON the pnri or the court. and W. ura-
anne that ths state Of hlabnmu had no
anon statute ON th- subject as ours tsnp
Bnyc ys Stata. "a Nluhnina. eaD. in tho
tbc snsa oil Alnry "a aiuyl NJ state,
Fifth LttaaauH pnFe sO this question up-
benra 10 nave come before tho COURT
~. afnt1to IL auatrd and tho Judge up-
ttapt7, tn have corrlugr.I M iuuttrr ta
aug Of pracucr la he ubscn,e of glatu-
fpnn, tE,, SSs. Of Mary ~ State lit
a,trrnrn in tho blU OF uXrrptlong TINT the
StttT i,y mo urossruting attorney tlaard
bor evidence ana that the defendant gave