Case Name: Eduardo Gutierrez v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-05-06
Citations: 100 Tex. Crim. 364
Docket Number: No. 8832
Parties: Eduardo Gutierrez v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 364–367

Head Matter:
Eduardo Gutierrez v. The State.
No. 8832.
Delivered May 6, 1925.
Rehearing denied June 3, 1925.
1.' — Assault to Murder — Evidence—Rule.
Where a part of a statement from the examining trial. testimony of a witness, and a part of the written statement made by said witness on the night of the shooting was introduced by appellant it was not error, under the rules of evidence to permit the state to introduce all of the witness’ testimony given at the examining trial, and also his full statement made to the district attorney, because same was germane to that portion of said testimony introduced by appellant. See Art. 811 Vernon’s C. C. P. and authorities there cited.
ON REHEARING.
2. — Same—Jury—Misconduct of.
The mere mention in the jury room of defendant’s failure to testify, if promptly rebuked, and the juror informed that it is not to be considered, is no ground for reversal, and also where the jury refers to a former conviction, it has been held that when the testimony supports the verdict, and the charge properly presents the ci.se, a verdict will not be set aside, unless in the opinion of the court it might have prejudiced appellant’s case. Following Jenkins v. State, 49 Tex. C. R 461, Smith v. State, 52 Tex. O. R 350.
Appeal from the District Court of El Paso County. Tried below before the Hon. W. D. Howe, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction of an assault to murder; penalty, five years in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
E. B. Elfers, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover G. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
BERRY, Judge. —
Appellant was convicted in the district court of El Paso County for the offense of assault with intent to murder and his punishment assessed at five years confinement in the penitentiary.
There are but two bills of exceptions in the record. The first complains of the action of the court in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial because of certain alleged misconduct of the jury. The record in this case shows that the court adjourned on the 4th day of April, 1924, and the Statement of Facts on the motion for new trial was not filed, according to the file mark thereon, in the district court of El Paso County until the 5th day of April, 1924, or one day after the court had adjourned. Under this state of the record the Statement of Facts can not be considered, and this court will presume that the trial court acted correctly in overruling the motion for a new trial.
By bill of exception No. 2 complaint is made of the action of the trial court in permitting the State to introduce in evidence the whole of the examining trial testimony of the witness Augustine Bustamente and the whole of the written statement made by said witness to the county attorney on the night of the shooting. The bill of exception shows that the defendant, for the purpose of impeaching said witness, offered iñ evidence and read to the jury certain excerpts and statements from the examining trial testimony of said witness and also from the written statement made by said witness to the county attorney on the night of the shooting. We have very carefully examined the examining trial testimony and the written statement introduced in evidence, and have reached the conclusion that it was entirely proper for the court to admit all of the .testimony of the witness given on the examining trial and also his full statement to the county attorney, because same were germane to that portion of said testimony and said statement that was introduced in evidence by the appellant. Aft. 811, Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, and authorities there cited.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and the conclusions announced are approved by the Court.