Case Name: John Staten v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-12-30
Citations: 93 Tex. Crim. 265
Docket Number: No. 6646
Parties: John Staten v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 265–271

Head Matter:
John Staten v. The State.
No. 6646.
Decided December 30, 1922.
Rehearing denied January 17, 1923.
1. — Assault to Murder — Recognizance—Practice on Appeal.
Where the instrument entered into was an appearance recognizance, and in no particular complied with Article'903, C. C. P., providing for a recognizance pending appeal, the appeal must be dismissed. However, a sufficient recognizance having been filed after dismissal, the case is heard upon its merits.
3. — Same—Continuance—Diligence—Deposition.
Where the absent witnesses resided in another State and no effort was made to obtain their depositions, and only a subpoena was applied for and issued, the same was insufficient diligence, and the application was correctly overruled.
3. —Same—Acts of Third Party — Court of Demonstration.
Where the motion for a new trial set out certain acts of third parties, alleging that demonstrations were made in the court room to hang the defendant, but upon hearing of testimony there was no ground upon which to base a motion for a new trial on account of harmful demonstrations in the courtroom, the same was properly overruled.
4. —Malice—Charge of Court — Pushing Injured Party From Moving Train.
Where appellant asserted that there was no evidence showing malice and that it was error for the court to have submitted the law of assault with malice aforethought, and the evidence showed that defendant deliberately pushed the party injured off a train moving forty-five miles an hour, the same did show express malice.
5. —Same—Evidence—Practice in Trial Court.
Where the trial court sustained appellant’s objection to a question propounded by the State to appellant regarding what he had told the grand jury, but it appeared that the question was merely asked and not answered, there was no reversible error.
6. —Same—Argument of Counsel — Practice on Appeal.
Where the prosecuting attorney in his argument referred to appellant as a confessed bootlegger, and there was no charge to withdraw said remark although objected to, and the counsel’s argument was simply a rather strong deduction from the testimony, there is no reversible error.
7. —Same—Rehearing—Practice on Appeal.
This court will adhere to its former holding that the mere asking of the alleged question, objections to which were sustained, would constitute no error. Following Huggins v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 214, and other cases. Besides, the bill of exceptions did not show the truth of the fact of defendant’s right or that he had not voluntarily appeared before the grand jury.
8. — Same—Argument of Counsel — No Reversible Error.
This court is not inclined to view the reference of State’s counsel to appellant as a confessed bootlegger under the facts in the instant case, was without evidence upon which such conclusion might find some basis, nor that it was so obviously hurtful as to call for a reversal.
Appeal from the District Court of Harrison. Tried below before the Honorable P. O. Beard.
Appeal from a conviction of an assault with intent to murder; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
Hall, Brown & Hall, for appellant.
On question of argument of counsel: Davis v. State, 114 S. W. Rep., 366.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
On question of argument of counsel: Monroe v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 326; Rainey v. State, 89 id., 293; Barton v. State, 89 id., 387; Cockrell v. State, 85 id., 326.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
Conviction is for assault with intent to murder. Punishment, five years in the penitentiary.
Motion for new trial was overruled on July 26, 1921, and on the same day appellant, seeking enlargement pending appeal, entered into recognizance as follows:
"The State of Texas DISTRICT COURT, HARRISON COUNTY
vs. No. 14704. July Term, A. D. 1921.
John Staten.
On this 26th day of July, A. D. 1921, came into open Court the defendant, John $taten, accompanied by R. A. Hall, Joe S. Brown and S. B. Hall, who were tendered and accepted as sureties; and thereupon the said John Staten, as principal, and the said R. A. Hall, Joe S. Brown and S. B. Hall, as sureties, acknowledged themselves to be indebted to the State of Texas, the said principal in the sum of Sever Hundred and Fifty and no/100 ($750.00) Dollars, and the said sureties in the sum of Seven Hundred and Fifty and no/100 ($750.00) Dollars, each, to be levied of their respective goods and chattels, lands and tenements, but to be void, nevertheless, in case the said principal shall well and truly make his personal appearance before the Honorable District Court of Harrison County, Texas, at the Court House of said County in Marshall, on the instanta 1921, and there remain from day to day and from term to term of said court to answer the State of Texas upon a charge by indictment duly presented and pending in said Court. Wherein the said John Staten is accused of the offense of assault to murder."
It may be seen at a glance that the foregoing instrument is an ap pearance recognizance only and in no particular complies with Article 903, C. C. P., providing for recognizance pending appeal. No jurisdiction is conferred upon this court by such an obligation. Westbrook v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 466, 227 S. W. Rep., 1104; Sanders v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 110, 201 S. W. Rep., 411; Lopez v. State, 85 Texas Crim. Rep., 402, 212 S. W. Rep., 954; Sauer v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 596, 236 S. W. Rep., 721. (For other authorities see collation under Article 903, Vernon's Texas Civ. & Crim. Statutes, 1922 Supplement.)
The appeal must be dismissed.
Dismissed.