Case Name: BIRD v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-10
Citations: 256 S.W. 277
Docket Number: No. 7322
Parties: BIRD v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 256
Pages: 277–279

Head Matter:
BIRD v. STATE.
(No. 7322.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 10, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 1923.)
I.Intoxicating liquors t&wkey;236(11) — Evidence of selling intoxicating liquors not denied supports conviction.
In a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquors, evidence that three men went to defendant’s house and bought liquor that was intoxicating, for which they paid $8, 'when not denied, amply supports a conviction.
2. Witnesses <&wkey;345(2) — Evidence that witness charged with assault 13 years ago not admissible for impeachment.
In a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquors, defendant was properly refused permission to prove for purposes of impeachment that ,a state witness had been charged with assault 13 years ago, at which time a complaint was filed against him in justice court, no indictment, however, being returned.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;>507(() — Not error to refuse instruction that purchaser accomplice.
In a prosecution for selling intoxicating jury that a state witness, who had purchased liquors, it was not error not to instruct the liquor from defendant, was an accomplice, the statute expressly exempting a purchaser of liquor from being deemed an accomplice.
On Rehearing.
4. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;239(2) — Instruction to convict, if jury believed from evidence that defendant sold liquor as charged in indictment, held proper.
Where an indictment charged that defendant sold spirituous and vinous liquor capable of producing intoxication, and state witness testified that defendant" sold whisky and wine capable of producing intoxication, and analysis of the wine showed over 10 per cent, alcoholic contents, it was not error to charge that, if jury believed from evidence that defendant sold spirituous or vinous liquor as charged in the indictment. they should convict.
5. Witnesses <&wkey;345(l) — Witnesses not impeachable by proving specific offenses.
It is improper to attempt to impeach a witness by proving specific violations of law.
6. Witnesses <&wkey;345(2) — Witness cannot be impeached with reference to immaterial matter.
In a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquors, it was not error to refuse defendant permission to question state’s witness whether in another case, tried recently, witness had not denied having been charged with assault 13 years ago, since such evidence was inadmissible to affect his credibility at that trial because the time was too remote, and therefore was an attempt to impeach a witness with reference to an immaterial matter at this trial.
7. Witnesses <&wkey;345(2) — Witness cannot bo impeached by proving misdemeanor not involving moral turpitude.
In a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor, there was no error in refusing to permit defendant to question state witness relative to his coming to town with liquor and raising Cain, for which he was arrested and fined, since one may not be impeached by proof of commission of a misdemeanor which does not involve moral turpitude.
8. Criminal law <&wkey;-37 — Not material that sheriff sent witness to defendant’s home on occasion of liquor sale.
In a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor, it was immaterial that state witness was sent by the sheriff to defendant’s home on occasion of alleged liquor sale.
9. Criminal law <&wkey;l056(l)— Refusal to give instruction not subject of- review where no exception taken.
Failure and refusal to give certain instructions to the jury cannot be raised on appeal, where no exception to the court’s charge on that ground was presented.'
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Williamson County; James R. Hamilton, Judge.
Arthur Bird was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, and lie appeals.
Affirmed.
J. F. Taulbee and Wilcox & Graves, all of Georgetown, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State,

Opinion:
LATTIMORB, J.
Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Williamson county of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary'.
The evidence seems to amply support the verdict. According to the state's case three young men went to appellant's house and bought from him a half gallon of whisky and some wine, for which they paid $8. The liquor was intoxicating. On behalf of appellant there was no testimony introduced denying that given by the state witnesses.
Appellant complains that he was denied the privilege of asking state witness Wininger if he was not charged with assault to rob in 1909. It is made to appear from the bill of exceptions that when the question was asked the jury were retired, and in the jury's absence the witness stated to the court that a complaint had been filed against him in 1909 for assault to rob, but that it had never progressed beyond the justice court; that the grand jury had met and adjourned, and no indictment had ever been returned against him. Mr. Branch cites a number of cases on page 101 of his Annotated P. C. sustaining the proposition that, where a party is charged with felony by complaint only, and sufficient time has elapsed for indictment, and none has been presented, proof that such complaint was made against him is not admissible to impeach him. We do not think the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that the witness Wininger was an'accomplice. Our statute expressly exempts the purchaser of liquor from being deemed an accomplice. We further observe that there was no exception to the court's charge on this ground, and no special charge asked. However, if such had been the case, it would not have been necessary for the court to so charge under our present statute.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
&wkey;»For other cases sea same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and indexes
<gs»For other cases see same topic and KE Y-N UMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes