Case Name: EALEY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-06-23
Citations: 224 S.W. 771
Docket Number: No. 5828
Parties: EALEY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 224
Pages: 771–772

Head Matter:
EALEY v. STATE.
(No. 5828.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 23, 1920.
On Motion for Rehearing, Oct. 13, 1920.)
1. Criminal law <®=>1171 (I) — Improper argument of prosecuting attorney harmless in view of evidence.
Improper argument of prosecuting attorney, which the court told the jury to disregard, was harmless; there being sufficient evidence of guilt and nothing to the contrary. ■
On Motion for Rehearing..
2. Criminal law @=>1173(5) — Failure to charge on accomplice testimony not error, where accomplice’s testimony is not favorable to state.
■Where testimony of an accomplice is not favorable to the state, it is not error to fail or to refuse to charge on such testimony.
3. Sunday @=o6( I) — -Complaint charging keeping open theater on Sunday good.
There is no merit in motion to quash a complaint, on the ground that the Sunday law does not apply to moving picture shows; the charge being of keeping open on Sunday a place of amusement, to wit, a theater, an act expressly forbidden by such statute.
4. Sunday @=>29(1) — Complaint charging defendant as agent of proprietor with keeping open theater on Sunday,good.
It is no ground for quashing a complaint, for keeping open on Sunday a place of amusement, that it charges defendant as being the agent or employé of the proprietor; Pen. Code 1911, art. 302, expressly making the agent or employé criminally liable when he opens or keeps open such place.
5. Sunday @=30(l)-?Criminai complaint valid though tiled on Sunday.
That the complaint was filed on Sunday is not ground for quashing it.
6. Indictment, and information @=o39— Complaint properly taken before assistant county ■ attorney.
Por a complaint to be taken before the assistant county attorney, without reference being made to the county attorney, is, under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 34, proper practice.
Appeal from Wichita County Court; J. P. Jones, Judge.
J. M. Ealey was convicted of violation of the Sunday law, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. C. McDonald, of Wichita, and Mathis & Caldwell, Heyser, Hicks & Wilson, and Harvey Harris, all of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the county court of Wichita county, of keeping open a moving picture show on Sunday, and fined $50. Practically every question of interest in this case has been discussed and settled by prior holdings of this court, with which the writer agrees as far as is necessary to any decision upon the facts, of the instant case. See Zucarro v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 197 S. W. 982, L. R. A. 1918B, 354; Ex parte Lingenfelter, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 30, 142 S. W. 555.
An ordinary moving picture show was kept open on Sunday, in entire violation of the forbiddance of the statute laws of this state. Pen. Code 1911, art. 302. Appellant operated the reel by which the films were projected upon the canvas. One Pois .owned the show, and was present, directing and managing it in general. Appellant was in the employ of Pois during the week, but on Sunday was acting as a member of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employés and Motion Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada. It seems that this concern made some character of agreement with the moving picture show proprietors, and sent to each show" on Sundays a man to operate its reel. The evident intent of such an arrangement was to thereby attempt to evade the law. Appellant was the employé of Pois, fibie owner, and was liable. Several special charges were asked, but we see no error in the trial court's action in refusing the same.
The complaint of the language of the prosecuting attorney is without merit. The argument was manifestly improper, but the trial court at once instructed the jury not 1o consider such remarks. If there was any doubt as to the evidence not sufficiently supporting the verdict, the question might be different. Nothing appears in the record save every evidence of a flagrant effort to trample on the law.
The judgment is affirmed.
grroFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes