Case Name: SHANKLIN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-01-15
Citations: 152 S.W. 1063
Docket Number: 
Parties: SHANKLIN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 152
Pages: 1063–1064

Head Matter:
SHANKLIN v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 15, 1913.)
1. Criminal Law. (§ 1091 ) — Appeal — Review — Bills oi? Exception.
Bills of exception merely stating that, on the trial of defendant for carrying a pistol, witnesses were allowed, over his objection, he excepting to the ruling, to testify that they saw him with a pistol before a certain day, some of them three or four months before that day, present no question for review; they stating no grounds of objection and giving no reason why the testimony was not admissible.
. [Efl. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Mg. §§ 2803, 2815, 2816, 2818, 2819, 2823, 2824, 2828-2833, 2843, 2931-2933, 2943; Dec. Dig. § 1091.*]
2. Criminal Law (§ 599 ) — Postponement or Continuance — Discretion.
Refusal of application for postponement or continuance, on the ground of surprise that evidence of defendant’s carrying a pistol before a certain date was admitted, was not an abuse of discretion; the evidence being as to a date within two years of the filing of the information, and the application not stating how, or by whom, defendant was misled to .believe that the state would rely on a transaction of a later date, or that he would be able to present a defense to the offense to which witnesses testified.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1333, 1334; Dec. Dig. § 599. ]
3. Criminal Law (§ 1090 ) — Appeal — Review of Char&e.
The charge in a misdemeanor case will not be reviewed; no bill of exceptions'having been reserved to it, and no special charge having been requested.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2822, 2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090. ]
4. Criminal Law (§ 1036 ) — Appeal —'Review — Objections Below.
Only such objections to evidence as were made on the trial will be passed on on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1631-1640, 2639-2641; Dec. Dig. § 1036. ]
Appeal from Nacogdoches County Court; F. P. Marshall, Judge.
George Shanklin was convicted, and appeals.
Affirmed.
June C. Harris, of Nacogdoches, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic'and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100.
There are several bills of exception in the record, but none in such shape as to present any question for review. The first reads: "Be it remembered that upon the trial of the above styled and numbered cause the state offered to prove by the witness Joel-la Martin, and did prove by the witness Joel-la Martin, that she saw defendant with a pistol three or four months before the 28th day of April, 1912, to which testimony defendant objected, which objection was by the court overruled, whereupon defendant, in open court, excepted to the ruling of the court, and here now tenders his bill of exceptions." This is all of the bill, and no grounds of objection are stated and no reason given why the testimony was not admissible.
Bill No. 2 states that Margaret Miles testified that she saw defendant with a pistol about four months before the 28th day of April. Allen Jones also testified that he had seen defendant with a pistol prior to April 28, 1912, and this was objected to in bills Nos. 3 and 4; but in none of the bills arc any grounds of objection stated, and no reason why the testimony was not admissible given. The record being in this condition, we cannot say that the court erred in the matter, for it is not presented in a way that calls our attention to the error, if it was error.
In bill No. 5 the defendant shows that, after the above witnesses had testified, defendant asked leave to withdraw his announcement and to postpone or continue the case, because the testimony was a surprise to him and he was not prepared to meet it; that he had been arrested charged with carrying on and about his person a pistol on or about the 28th day of April, 1912; and that he had not expected that evidence of other and different transactions would be admitted by the court. The court, in approving the bill, states: "This bill No. 5 is approved with the statement that defendant named no witness, nor ashed a postponement for the purpose of obtaining the evidence of any witness stated or suggested, neither in his motion for new trial did he introduce any evidence nor affidavits or give the name of any witness in defendant's behalf." Under- the decisions of this court the information covered a period within two years prior to filing of the complaint and information, and the application does not state how or by whom appellant was misled into the belief that the state would rely on a transaction taking place on April 28th, if he did so rely, at the time of announcement for trial. Nor does he in the application state that he will be able to present a defense of the offense as testified to by these witnesses. Consequently, we would not be authorized to hold that the court abused his discretion in refusing to postpone or continue the case.
The appellant requested no special charges and reserved no bill of exceptions to the charge of the court. Consequently, this being a misdemeanor, we will not review the charge. However, the paragraph complained of in the motion for new trial would not present error, in the absence of a special charge presenting the matter more specifically.
Appellant has filed an able brief, and, if the matters were as fully and specifically presented in the bills of exception as he presents them in his brief, it may be that the court admitted evidence of more than one offense, and if he did so, and it had been objected to on that ground, and the bill of exception so showed, it might present error; but, if the defendant made any such objection on the trial of the case, the bills do not disclose that fact, and if evidence of more than one offense was offered, and the state should seek to again try him, he will be protected by a plea of former conviction for all acts offered in evidence on this trial. We, on appeal, can pass on only Such objections as were made on the trial of the ease.
The judgment is affirmed.