Case Name: ROACH v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-11-11
Citations: 277 S.W. 385
Docket Number: No. 9271
Parties: ROACH v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 277
Pages: 385–386

Head Matter:
ROACH v. STATE.
(No. 9271.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 11, 1925.)
Callaway & Callaway, of Comanche, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Green-ville, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.

Opinion:
BERRX, J.
The appellant was convicted in the district court of Comanche county for the offense of selling liquor, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of one year.
Appellant, by his first bill of exceptions, complains at the court's action in per-' mitting the witness Joe Davis to testify on behalf of the state; the ground of the objection being that the witness had admitted that a short time before the trial of this case he had pleaded guilty in the federal court at Fort Worth to the offense of selling intoxicating liquor in violation of the federal prohibition law, and had served his sentence of 60 days in jail for such offense, and had not been pardoned. The bill, further shows that the defendant objected to his testifying, for, the .reason that such offense is a felony under the laws of the state of Texas, and is a possible felony under the federal law. This bill of exceptions is entirely insufficient to show any error. It contains no statement of facts .whatsoever, and it has been held by this court without a break' that matters stated as mere grounds of objection will not be termed as allegations of fact. This bill, taken on its face, utterly fails to recite any fact or to make any reference to any fact contained in the record which would enable this court to determine that error was committed in the matter complained of. See note 21, p. 537, Vernon's O. O. P. Were we required, however, to examine the statement of facts to determine the sufficiency of the bill, we would find in the same the direct statement from this witness that he was convicted of a misdemeanor. Under this condition of the record, appellant's contention, as presented in bill of exceptions No. 1, is overruled.
Tbe evidence in tbis case is entirely sufficient to support tbe verdict, and tbe court did not err in refusing to instruct an acquittal. By virtue of tbe statute itself, tbe witness Joe Davis, wbo aided in tbe purchase of tbe liquor, is not an accomplice, and tbe court did not err in refusing appellant's special cbargé No. 2, by wbicb be sought to have tbe Jury told that said witness was an accomplice.
By special charge No. 3, appellant sought to have tbe jury instructed that if tbe liquor in question was sold to any other persons than tbe purchasers named in tbe indictment that they should acquit tbe defendant. 'This identical question was pertinently and fairly submitted by tbe court in paragraph 5 of bis main charge, and there is no error shown in bis refusal to give special charge No. 3.
Tbe foregoing disposes of all complaints urged by appellant, and, finding no error in tbe record, it is our opinion that tbe judgment should be in all things affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
Tbe foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of tbe Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by tbe court.