Case Name: R. F. Thompson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-04-27
Citations: 90 Tex. Crim. 15
Docket Number: No. 6228
Parties: R. F. Thompson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 15–24

Head Matter:
R. F. Thompson v. The State.
No. 6228.
Decided April 27, 1921.
Rehearing denied June 24, 1921.
1. — Robbery—Recognizance—Practice on Appeal.
Where the appeal was dismissed because of a defective recognizance, and a sufficient recognizance was made thereafter, the appeal is reinstated and decided upon its merits.
2. — Same—Evidence—General Reputation — Injured Party.
Where upon trial of robbery, the reputation of the injured party was in no way an issue in the case, there was no error in refusing to admit testimony to prove the general reputation of the alleged injured party.
3. — Same—Evidence—Plight—Same Transaction — Acts of Defendant.
Upon trial of robbery, there was no error in admitting testimony showing that after defendant and his companion left the scene of the robbery they were pursued by several persons; (who appeared as witnesses for the State) and while engaged in flight and within a short distance of the scene of the robbery the defendant and his companion shot at some of the pursuing party. Following Taylor v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep., 10. Distinguishing Spriggins v. State, 42 Texas Crim. Rep., 341.
4. — Same—Evidence—Written Statement of Defendant — Confession.
On trial of robbery, there was no error in admitting in evidence the written statement of the defendant made two days after the alleged offense. although, said statement may have been used in evidence in other cases against defendant involving the same transaction. The admissibility of such confession is a question of law, and where it was made in conformity with the statute, there was no reversible error.
5. — Same—Involuntary Statement — Charge of Court — Practice in Trial Court.
While the testimony came within the line of authorities which hold that when the making of the alleged confession, or its voluntary character is contested, such questions should be submitted to the jury, yet where no. exception was made to its introduction in evidence and no special charge requested, there was no error.
6. — Same—Evidence—Acts of Defendant — Practice in Trial Court.
Upon trial of robbery where defendant was asked by the State to stand up in order that a witness then testifying might look at him, and that he stood up, and the witness was asked whether he had ever seen him before, and the court informed him that he need not do so, and besides it was not shown in the record whether this objection to defendant’s rising to his feet, was made before or after defendant rose, there was no reversible error. Following Gallaher v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 227, and other cases.
7. — Same—Evidence—Defendant as a Witness — Practice in Trial Court.
Upon trial of robbery, where defendant took the witness stand and was. asked to state whether or not his testimony as to what happened in Ranger and in other places was from his recollection or from what he had heard others say and from what he had read, to which an objection by the State was sustained, there was no reversible error, as the answer which the witness, would have made was not responsive to the question and similar testimony was already in evidence.
8. — Same—Bill of Exceptions — Rule Stated — Practice on Appeal.
A bill of exceptions so framed as to compel this court to search the-statement of facts in order to find out what is therein referred to and meant, is insufficient and defective, but even if the record be examined in reference thereto, there is no reversible error.
9. — Same—Value of Property — Indictment—Evidence.
Where, upon trial of robbery, the property alleged to have been taken by said defendant in said robbery was a diamond ring, there was no error in-allowing the State to prove its value, although it is not necessary in indictments for robbery to allege the value of the property.
10. — Same—Evidence—Reputation of Third Parties.
Where, upon trial of robbery, the evidence showed that the offense was-committed in a cabaret, there was no error in refusing defendant to bring-out testimony to show what kind or character of persons frequented and worked in said cabaret, and what kind of business was there carried on.. The bad character of the associates of the witness cannot be proved.
11. — Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of robbery, the evidence sustained a conviction under a proper charge of the court, there was no reversible error.
12. — Same—Rehearing—Reputation of Witnesses — Evidence.
Where it appeared from the record that the answers of certain State’s, witnesses, as to the character of the entertainment afforded the guests in the cabaret where the alleged robbery was committed, could not have been held admissible as affecting, any legitimate issue in the case, there was no> reversible error.
13. — Same—Evidence—Flight—Acts of Defendant — Rehearing.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of robbery, the record showed that what occurred after the alleged robbery and while defendant and his companions were on their way to the place where arrested, in an effort to escape, was admissible to show flight, etc., there was no reversible error.
14. — Same—Voluntary Confession — Charge of Court — Discretion of Court.
When there is a conflict as to the voluntary character of an alleged confession which conflict is settled by the admission of said confession in evidence, it is the duty of this court to uphold the action of the trial court unless it is here made to appear that such action was an abuse of the discretion of the trial court, which in this instance is not shown, and there was no reversible error.
15. — Same—Indictment—Robbery—Value of Property — Rule Stated.
While the indictment in a robbery case need not allege value of the property taken from the injured party, yet some value must be shown, and there was therefore no error in admitting testimony as to the value of the alleged diamond ring. Following Williams v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 523, and other cases.
Appeal from the District Court of Eastland. Tried below before the Honorable E. A. Hill.
Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, imprisonment in the penitentiary for eleven years.
The opinion states the case.
R. N. Grisham, G. Hubbard, J. B. Perry, and J. S. Grisham for appellant.
C. M. Cureton,-Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, JudgU.
Appellant was convicted of robbery, and his punishment fixed at eleven 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 number 6229, R. F. Thompson v. State, 234-S. W. Rep., 400, said opinion being this day handed down, the State's motion to dismiss is granted and it is so ordered.
Dismissed.