Case Name: CULVER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-02-14
Citations: 249 S.W. 853
Docket Number: No. 7448
Parties: CULVER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 249
Pages: 853–855

Head Matter:
CULVER v. STATE.
(No. 7448.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 14, 1923.
Rehearing Granted March 28, 1923.)
1. Criminal law <@==419, 428(10) — Testimony held hearsay and properly excluded. .
In a prosecution for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, testimony by witness that another person had stated that the apparatus belonged to him was hearsay and was properly excluded.
2. Witnesses <@=>337(5) — Proof of conviction of other crimes admissible to affect credibility of accused.
Where one accused of crime testifies in his own b.ehalf, he may be questioned in regard to his indictment or conviction of other felonies to affect his credibility.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;>236(l9).—Evidence held to warrant conviction of manufacturing intoxicating liquor.
Evidence that defendant was found at a still when it was raided and that he attempted to' rpn away and refused to stop, even though the officers fired after him, and was captured only when he ran into a bog, held to warrant conviction.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;925'/2(3)—Conduct of juror in arguing from facts within own knowledge held ground for new trial.
In a prosecution for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, the conduct of a juror during deliberations of the jury, in replying to an argument that accused might merely have stopped at the still in stating, “I know that country down there, and that man was a mile out of his way to get to that still,” held ground for new trial.
Appeal from District Court, Titus County; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
L. E. Culver was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and lie appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Seb E. Caldwell, of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant.
R.. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DATTIMORE, J.
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 wás 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 appeilant'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.
<@=For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
(gsoFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes