Case Name: THOMPSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-04-27
Citations: 234 S.W. 401
Docket Number: No. 6228
Parties: THOMPSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 234
Pages: 401–406

Head Matter:
THOMPSON v. STATE.
(No. 6228.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 27, 1921.
Rehearing Granted^nd Judgment Affirmed June 1, 1921. Further Rehearing Denied June 24, 1921.)
1. Bail <&wkey;67 — Appeal dismissed, in'absence of proper recognizance.
An appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals will be dismissed, where the recognizance is in form of a recognizance for appearance before a district court, and not before the appellate court.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Robbery <&wkey;23(l) — Reputation of injured party inadmissible.
In a prosecution for robbery, court did not err in refusing to permit defendant to prove the general reputation of the alleged injured party as being that of a dangerous ¿nd violent man, there being no claim on the part of either the state or accused of any facts or the existence of any issues which could have been affected, or made clearer either way, by proof of injured party’s reputation.
3. Criminal law &wkey;35l(3, 4), 369(1) — Flight of defendant and effort to prevent arrest admissible.
What alleged robhers did during their flight from the scene of the robbery, testimony as to such flight, and what defendants did during the flight in an effort to prevent arrest and to aid them in escaping, was admissible, even though such evidence shows an independent crime, such as an attempt to shoot pursuers, especially where defendant claims that he was in such mental condition from the excessive use of liquor that he had no sort of knowledge or recollection of any of the events connected with the alleged crime, or his flight, or anything that occurred until several days later.
4. Criminal law &wkey;>109l(4) — Mere statement of fact in bill of exceptions insufficient to bring it before reviewing court.
The fact, that defendant’s statement had been used in evidence in other cases against defendant, urged as objection to introduction in evidence, cannot be brought before the Court of Criminal Appeals by merely stating it in a bill of exceptions.
5. Criminal law <&wkey;536 — Written statement of accused admissible in more than one prosecution.
There is no reason or authority for rejecting a written statement of accused made m compliance with Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 810, relating to written confessions, because it had become material evidence in other cases against the accused, growing out of or involving the same transaction.
6. Criminal law &wkey;532(!/2) — Admissibility of oonfession question for court.
The admissibility of a written confession is a question of law for the court, under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 810.
7. Criminal law <&wkey;i038(3), 1056(1) — No reversible error in failing to instruct, in absence of exception and request.
A written confession being in proper form and prima facie admissible, under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 810, and it being the province of accused, if not satisfied therewith, and if desirous of having the execution thereof, or its voluntary character, submitted to the jury, to except to the charge for failure to so submit, and to present corrected special instructions, no reversible error is shown from failure to submit such issue, where there is no exception to the court’s charge for failure to submit the matter to the jury, and no corrective special instructions presented.
8. Criminal law &wkey;>393(3) — No reversible er- > ror, when state’s attorney had accused stand up for identification.
The fact that accused stood up when asked so to do by the state’s attorney for purpose of identification does not require a reversal, where the trial court, when objection was made, informed accused that he could sit down if he desired; it not being shown that defendant was compelled against his will to do anything.
9. Criminal law &wkey;>!09l (I) — Bill requiring search of statement of facts defective.
A bill of exceptions so framed as to compel the appellate court to search the statement of facts, in order to find out what is therein referred to and meant, is ordinarily held insufficient and defective.
10. Criminal law <s&wkey;l09l (5) — Bill of exceptions held not to comply with rules.
A bill of exceptions to action of court in sustaining an objection to question to state’s witness as to whether or not his testimony as to what happened in R. and in other places was from his recollection, or from what he had heard others say, and from what he had read, which stated that “the witness would have answered that all his testimony concerning the alleged offense, and offenses of robbery and assault with intent to murder, as made by him during this trial and upon other trials, were statements made, not within his personal knowledge, but based wholly on what others told him, and what he had read in newspapers,” did not comply with the rules, since it does not inform the court as to what testimony was included.
11. Robbery <&wkey;17(4) — Indictments need not state value of property.
It is not necessary, in indictments for robbery, to state the value of the property alleged to have been taken, as such value cannot affect either the question of guilt or the penalty which should be inflicted.
12. Robbery <&wkey;20 — Proof of value of diamond taken held competent, although not alleged in indictment.
In a prosecution for robbery, where property alleged to have been taken was a diamond ring, the court did not err in allowing the state to prove the value of the diamond, over the objection that such proof was incompetent, inasmuch as no value was alleged in the indictment.
13. Robbery <@=323(1) — Character of cabaret robbed inadmissible.
In a prosecution for robbery of the proprietor and others in a cabaret, court did not err in not permitting accused to bring out what kind and character of persons frequented and worked in the cabaret, and what kind of business was there carried on, that intoxicating liquor was unlawfully sold there, immoral women employed, and unseemly conduct indulged in, all with the connivance of the officers of the law, since such matters would give no one the right to rob the proprietor or shoot up his place.
14. Witnesses <&wkey;338 — Bad character of associates of witness inadmissible.
In a prosecution for robbery of proprietor of a cabaret at his place of business, questions as to the general character of entertainment afforded at the place, or by one woman employed there, who was not a witness, or the general reputation of the place as a rendezvous of vice and crime, are not a proper or legal way to attack the credibility of witnesses, who were in such place at the time of the alleged robbery, nor the credibility of the proprietor. '
On Further Motion for Rehearing.
15. Criminal law <&wkey; 1153(6) — Action of trial court in admitting confession not disturbed, in absence of abuse of discretion.
Where there is a conflict as to the voluntary character of an alleged confession offered as evidence in the trial court, which conflict is settled by the admission of the confession, it is the duty of the appellate court to uphold the ■ action of the trial court, unless it is made to appear that such action was an abuse of the . discretion of the trial tribunal.
16. Criminal law <&wkey;53l(3) — Admission of coil,. fession in evidence held not abuse of discretion.
In a prosecution for robbery, where state’s evidence supporting voluntary character of a written confession was given by a number of witnesses, who were without an apparent interest in the case, and defendant’s evidence consisted of testimony of accused and his father, held, that it could not be said that the court abused its discretion in admitting the confession in evidence.
.Appeal from District Court, Eastland County; E. A. Hill, Judge.
R. F. Thompson was convicted of robbery, and appeals.
Affirmed.
R. N. Grisham, G. Hubbard, J. B. Perry, and J. S. Grisham, all of Eastland, for appellant.
C. M. Cüreton, Atty. Gen., and C. L. Stone, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted of robbery, and his punishment fixed at 11 years' confinement in the penitentiary.
Our Assistant Attorney General makes a motion to dismiss the appeal because of a defective recognizance. An examination of said recognizance shows that it appears to be in form a recognizance for appearance before the district court of Eastland county, and not before this court upon appeal.
For the reasons given by us for dismissing an appeal for a similar recognizance in cause No. 6229, R. F. Thompson v. State, 234 S. W. 400, said opinion being this day handed down, the state's motion to dismiss is granted; and it is so ordered.
tf&5>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
<@=For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
dteoFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes