Case Name: KELLER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-03-07
Citations: 252 S.W. 779
Docket Number: No. 7425
Parties: KELLER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 252
Pages: 779–781

Head Matter:
KELLER v. STATE.
(No. 7425.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 7, 1923.
Rehearing Denied May 30, 1923.
Second Rehearing Denied June 29, 1923.)
On Motion for Rehearing.
1. Criminal law <§=>l 120(3) — Exclusion of questions not reviewabie where expected answers are not in the record.
Bills of exceptions failing to show what witnesses would have answered to proposed questions are not reviewabie.
2. Criminal law <§=>! 1791/2(1)— Question held not prejudicial.
In a prosecution for bigamy, a question asked on cross-examination of a witness for defendant referring to the woman with whom defendant contracted the second marriage as “this little crippled girl” helé not prejudicial, as her crippled condition, for all that appeared in the record, might have been apparent to the jury.
3. Criminal law @=>351 (3) — Evidence of flight held admissible.
Testimony tending to show flight of accused is admissible.
4. Criminal- law <§=>465 — Nonexpert witness testifying to mental state must add details.
A nonexpert witness may give an opinion as to mental status only after detailing the incidents upon which such opinion is based.
5. Criminal law.@=5412(3) — ’Witnesses <§=>389 —Impeachment where witness does not remember statement held, proper; damaging statement admissible.
Where defendant states on cross-examination that he does not remember having made a damaging statement, the state may impeach him as to such testimony, or may introduce the statement as original evidence.
6. Witnesses <§=>337(5) — Accused may be impeached by showing prosecution of crime Involving moral turpitude.
For purposes of impeachment, the • state • may properly prove by appellant that he had been charged with a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.
On Second Motion for Rehearing.
7. Witnesses <§=>337(5) — Defendant testifying to relevant fact may be impeached.
Accused having testified for himself, though only to mitigate the punishment, and not to acquit, the state may nevertheless impeach him by evidence of a criminal record or other legitimate way.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tar-rant County; George E. Hosey, Judge.
R. T. Keller was convicted of bigamy, ánd he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. L. Black, of Austin, and Stanley Boy-kin, Carl Wade, and Sam S. Beene, all of Fort Worth, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Tarrant county of bigamy, and his punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary.
Appellant has a number of bills of exception in the record, each of which presents the same unfortunate condition. The term of the court below ended on the 1st of July, 1922. On the 30th of June the court overruled appellant's motion for a new trial, and as a part of his order gave to appellant 60 days from said date in which to prepare and file bills of exception and statement of facts in said cause. On August 24th thereafter appellant sought an extension of said time, and the court made his order specifically granting 30 days from and a£ter August 29, 1922, within which to file and prepare such bills of exception and statement of facts. There remained 2 days of August. The 30-day exten sion thus granted appellant expired on September 28, 1922. Each of appellant's bills of exception was filed on September 29, 1922. They were one day too late. We cannot consider them. Jarrott v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 544, 209 S. W. 663; Benson v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 126, 210 S. W. 538. Authorities are too numerous to mention forbidding us to consider bills óf exception which are filed after the time fixed by statute, or by the order of the court below extending such time.
The statement of facts amply shows that appellant, while a married man, attempted a second time to enter the marriage relation in Tarrant county about the date alleged in the indictment. The minister who performed the ceremony and the persons who were present at the marriage testified, and the marriage license was introduced in evidence. The only attempted defense was based on insanity produced by the continued use of intoxicating liquor. The facts amply supported the verdict and judgment of guilty. •
Finding no error in the record, an affirmance is ordered.
<§=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes