Case Name: R. T. Keller v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-03
Citations: 95 Tex. Crim. 256
Docket Number: No. 7425
Parties: R. T. Keller v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 256–260

Head Matter:
R. T. Keller v. The State.
No. 7425.
Decided March 1923.
Rehearing denied June 29, 1923.
1. —Bigamy—Bills of Exception.
Authorities are too numerous to mention forbidding this court to consider bills of exception which are filed after the time fixed by statute or by the order of the court extending such time. Following Benson vt State, 85 Texas Crim. Rep., 126, and other cases.
2. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of bigamy, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, there was no reversible error.
3. —Same—Rehearing—Bills of Exception — Transcript.
Where it appeared on reconsideration of the motion for rehearing, that the bills of exception were inserted in the transcript prior to the date of the certificate, and must have been filed on or before the date when the time expired they will be considered on appeal.
4. —Same—Bills of Exception — Practice on Appeal.
Where the bills of exception fail to show what the answers of the witnesses would have been to the question propounded, they cannot be considered; neither can a bystander’s bill be considered which is not properly authenticated.
5. —Same—Evidence—Bill of Exception.
Where it was not shown by the bill of exception in what manner the cross-examination of the witness was prejudicial, the same could not be considered on appeal.
6. —Same—Flight—Evidence.
Upon trial of bigamy there was no error in showing that the defendant went to another State, was there arrested and brought back for trial.
7. —Same—Evidence—Non-Expert Witness.
Upon trial of bigamy, where the court sustained an objection by the State, to the testimony of a sister of defendant’s first wife relative to his state of mind when intoxicated, of which she had no personal knowledge, there was no reversible error.
8. —Same—Evidence—Impeaching Testimony — Predicate.
Where the testimony was admissible as original evidence without the necessity of laying a predicate therefor, and besides defendant only claimed not to remember having made the statement, would not deprive the State of the right to call the impeaching witness.
9. —Same—Evidence—Moral Turpitude.
The State had the right to prove by the defendant that he had been charged in the courts of another State or of this State with a felony, or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.
10. —Same—Rehearing—Defendant as a Witness.
Where defendant testified in his own behalf to a relevant fact, the State has the right to impeach his testimony.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Tarrant. Tried below before the Honorable George E. Hosey.
Appeal from a conviction of bigamy; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Sam S. Beene and Carl Wade for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
— Appellant was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Tarrant County of bigamy, and his punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary.
Appellant has a number of bills of exception in the record, each of which presents the same unfortunate condition. The term of the court below ended on the 1st of July, 1922. On the 30th of June the court overruled appellant's motion for a new trial and as a part of his order gave to appellant sixty days from said date in which to prepare and file bills of exception and statement of facts in said cause. On August 24th thereafter, appellant sought an extension of said time and the court made his order specifically granting thirty days from and after August 29, 1922, within which to file and prepare such bills of exception and statement of facts. There remained two days of August. The thirty days extension thus granted appellant expired on September 28, 1922. Each of appellant's bills of exception was filed on September 29, 1922. They were one day too late. We cannot consider them. Jarrott v. State, 84 Texas Crim. Rep. 544, 209 S. W. Rep. 663; Benson v. State, 85 Texas Crim. Rep. 126, 210 S. W. Rep. 538. Authorities are too numerous to mention forbidding us • to consider bills of exception which are filed after the time fixed by statute, or by the order of the court below extending such time. .
The statement of facts amply shows that appellant, while a married man, attempted a second time to reenter the marriage relation in Tarrant County about the date alleged in the indictment.. The minister who performed the ceremony and the persons who were present at the marriage testified, and the marriage license was introduced in evidence. The only attempted defense was based on insanity produced by the continued use of 'intoxicating liquor. The facts amply supported the verdict and judgment of guilty.
Finding no error in the record, an affirmance is ordered.
Affirmed.