Case Name: ANDERSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-04-29
Citations: 275 S.W. 1036
Docket Number: No. 8979
Parties: ANDERSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 275
Pages: 1036–1038

Head Matter:
ANDERSON v. STATE.
(No. 8979.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 29, 1925.
On the Merits May 27, 1925.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 14, 1925.)
John W. Moyers, of Mineral Wells, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover O. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
BERRX, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Palo Pinto county for the offense of aggravated assault, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100 and 90 days in jail.
The state has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal -because of an insufficient recognizance, in that the recognizance does not state that the appellant was convicted, and further because it does not state of what offense he was convicted.
An examination of the recognizance shows that the same fails to state the offense for which appellant was convicted and fails to show in what court he was convicted. Under these conditions, the state's motion must be sustained. Article 903, Code of Criminal Procedure; Hughes v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 288, 136 S. W. 1068; Block v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. R. 151, 151 S. W. 1053.
Appellant will be allowed 15 days from this date in which to file a correct recognizance in this case, otherwise this judgment will become final.
Because the recognizance is wholly insufficient, it is the opinion of this court -that the appeal should be dismissed.
On the Merits.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Palo Pinto county for the offense of an aggravated assault, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100 and confinement in the county jail for 90 days.
This case was dismissed at a former day of this term because of a defective recognizance, but this defect has now been cured and the case is properly before us on its merits.
The indictment under which appellant was tried charged him with an assault with intent to commit rape on Vera Welch, a female under the age of 18 years. The testimony of prosecutrix is wholly sufficient to justify the verdict of the jury in this case.
There are but three bills of exception in the record, and we have carefully examined each of them and have failed to find anything in either of them that would warrant a reversal of the case.
Bill of exception No. 1 complains of the action of the court in refusing to permit the appellant, on cross-examination of Vera Welch, to ask her the following question:
"Now, John Raines McCracken tried to get the little Wells girl to sit in his lap-; didn't he?"
This bill of exception fails to show what answer the witness would have made to the question. This is always an essential requirement of a bill of exception, in order to enable this court to determine its merits. Unless this court knows what the answer would have been, we are not in a position to say that the exclusion of the answer was in any wise harmful to the appellant.
By bill of exception No. 2, complaint is made that the district attorney asked the witness Holmes what the general reputation of Jessie Welch was for truth and veracity and virtue a'nd chastity. This -bill also fails to show what the answer to said question was and v;hat we have said with' reference to bill No; 1 disposes of this bill against appellant's contention.
Bill of exceptions No. 3 complains of the action of the court in permitting the district attorney in his -argument to discuss the witness Jessie Welch's reputation for virtue and chastity. It is sufficient to say that bill of exception No. 3 is nowhere signed or approved by the trial court, and in this condition it cannot be considered.
The court's action in refusing the requested instruction asked by the appellant shows no error, in view of the fact that appellant was only convicted for an aggravated assault. This instruction pertains to the instruction of assault with intent to rape, and by the jury's verdict this issue was-eliminated from the ease.
Thére being no error in the record, it is our opinion that the judgment of the trial court should -be affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
.The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been ex amined by tbe judges of tbe Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by tbe court.