Case Name: JOHNSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1927-01-05
Citations: 289 S.W. 1008
Docket Number: No. 10468
Parties: JOHNSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 289
Pages: 1008–1009

Head Matter:
JOHNSON v. STATE.
(No. 10468.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 5, 1927.)
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.

Opinion:
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.