Case Name: L. E. Culver v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-02-14
Citations: 94 Tex. Crim. 103
Docket Number: No. 7448
Parties: L. E. Culver v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 94
Pages: 103–106

Head Matter:
L. E. Culver v. The State.
No. 7448.
Decided February 14, 1923.
Rehearing granted March 28, 1923.
1. —Manufacturing Intoxicating Liquor — Hearsay Evidence.
Upon trial oí the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, there was no error in the rejection of testimony to the effect that another party had stated to the witness that the apparatus testified about belonged to him; as this was purely hearsay.
2. —Same—Moral Turpitude — Evidence—Rule Stated.
It is well settled in this State that one who becomes a witness in his own behalf may be asked with reference to his indictment or conviction of other felonies; besides, the bill of exceptions was defective.
3. —Same—Peremptory Charge — Acquittal.
Upon trial of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor, there was no error in refusing a peremptory instruction of acquittal, under the facts of the instant case.
4. —Same—Misconduct of Jury.
Where, upon trial of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor, the record on appeal showed that the jury, in its retirement and consideration of its verdict, received other facts not in evidence which were injurious to defendant, and which was not controverted by the State, the judgment must be reversed because of such misconduct.
5. —Same—Rehearing—Sufficiency of the Evidence — Practice on Appeal.
While the judgment will not be reversed and the cause remanded on a complaint of insufficient evidence to support the conviction, yet the court is constrained to order a reversal on account of alleged misconduct of the jury.
Appeal from the District Court of Titus. Tried below before the Hon. R. T. Wilkinson.
Appeal from a conviction of the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitenitary.
The opinion states the case.
Seb F. Caldwell for appellant.
On question of misconduct of jury; Mitchell v. State, 36 S. W. Rep., 456; McDougal v. State, 194 id., 948; Brown, v. State, 242 id., 219; Hill v. State, 215 id., 107.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Titus County of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
By his bill of exceptions No. 1 appellant complains of the rejection of testimony of a witness by whom he sought to prove that another party had stated to witness that the apparatus testified about in this case belonged to him. We know of no authority which would hold such testimony removed from the domain of hearsay, and in our opinion it was inadmissible.
Appellant's bill of exceptions No. 2 presents objection to proof on the part of the State of the fact that appellant had been convicted and given a suspended sentence upon his prosecution for a felony, and also the fact that appellant was now under bond for his appearance before the Federal court to answer for violating the Federal liquor law. It is well settled in this State that an appellant who becomes a witness in his own behalf may be asked with reference to his indictment or conviction of other felonies. Such testimony tends to affect his credibility. It is not affirmatively shown in the bill that the charges pending against appellant in the Federal court were not felonies. No error appears in said bill of exceptions.
Bill of exceptions No. 3 presents appellant's further complaint of the rejection of evidence offered in his behalf which in our opinion is clearly hearsay.
There was no error in refusing a peremptory instruction of acquittal.
The bill of exceptions complaining of misconduct of the jury presents no error. This matter was set up in appellant's motion for new trial and one witness testified upon the hearing before the trial court. The statements attributed to one of the jurors while the jury was in retirement were in the nature of a reply to argument made by another juror, and while said statements appear to reflect a matter not in testimony, they were of apparently little materiality and we would not deem the learned trial court in error in declining to grant a new trial because of same.
Finding no error in the record, an affirmance is ordered.
Affirmed.