Case Name: DONOHUE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-12-14
Citations: 236 S.W. 86
Docket Number: No. 6532
Parties: DONOHUE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 236
Pages: 86–89

Head Matter:
DONOHUE v. STATE.
(No. 6532.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 14, 1921.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1922.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;l037(l), 1055 — Improper argument not considered on appeal where no objection nor exception.
Improper argument of the prosecuting attorney, to which no objection was made mor exception taken at the time, cannot be considered on appeal.
2. Criminal law <§=l 144(14, 15) — Appellate court must presume in misdemeanor case that separation of jury was lawful, and that instructions were proper.
In a misdemeanor case, the appellate court must presume, in the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary, that a separation of the jury complained of by appellant was allowed in accordance with Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 191G, art. 746, and that the proper instructions were given to and obeyed by the jury.
3. Criminal law &wkey;1039, 1134(2) — Ex parte statements as to feeling against appellant, and conversations possibly heard by jury, not considered on appeal, and objection should have been made at trial.
The appellate court cannot accept, as raising objections to separation of the jury in a misdemeanor case, ex parte statements as to popular feeling against appellant, and conversations between parties interested which the jury might have heard, and such matter should be made the subject of an objection to such separation at the time and followed by proof of something illegal and injurious, from which injury was reasonably certain.
4. Witnesses <&wkey;286(4) — Testimony on redirect examination of character witnesses properly excluded, as not called for by cross-examination.
In a prosecution for aggravated assault, the court did not err in refusing to allow defendant to ask a character witness on redirect examination what his conduct had been toward her, or to show that defendant took no part in lewd conversations had in his presence, and had been heard to express his displeasure at same, where the state, on cross-examination of the former witness, asked her nothing reflecting on defendant’s relations toward her, nor anything, in cross-examination of the other character witnesses, which would call for the latter testimony.
5. Criminal law <&wkey;lll9(4) — Improper remarks of prosecutor not considered, where bill of exceptions uncertain as to which were complained of.
Improper remarks of a private prosecutor during examination of prosecutrix cannot be considered on review, where it appeared from the bill of exceptions, which contained a number of such remarks, that appellant first asked the court not to consider any of the remarks of counsel, and later to instruct the jury not to consider the speech of the private prosecutor; it being uncertain at which of such remarks appellant’s objection was directed.
6. Assault and battery <&wkey;>IOOi — Punishment of 12 months in jail and $100 fine held justified.
In a prosecution for aggravated assault, evidence iheld sufficient to justify the' jury in fixing the punishment at twelve months in jail and a fine of $100.
On Motion for Rehearing.
7. Criminal law <§=»III2 — Correctness of court’s refusal of approval of bill of exceptions not reviewabie, when controverted only by affidavit of appellant’s attorney.
The correctness of the trial court’s action in refusing to approve a bill of exceptions, and writing thereon that no objection was made nor exception taken to argument of the prosecuting attorney therein complained of, may not be made an issue on appeal, when controverted only by the affidavit of appellant’s attorney.
8. Criminal law &wkey;>l092(!l) — Statute, requiring court to file correct bill of exceptions, inapplicable, where bill refused because nc exception taken to matters complained of.
Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, arts. 2065-2067, directing the trial court, oh presentation of a bill of exceptions, to suggest corrections, and, if same are not agreed to, to refuse the bill, return it to counsel, and, file a correct bill, failing in which latter action the judgment will be reversed and remanded on the ground that appellant, who, if dissatisfied with the court’s bill may file a bystanders’ bill with supporting affidavits, has been deprived of his bill, are inapplicable, where the court, on refusing its approval, indorsed on the bill a statement that no exception was taken to the matters therein complained of; the court having thereby said all he could by filing an instrument of his own.
9. Criminal law <&wkey;>IH2 — Issue as to court’s statement on refused bill of exceptions that no exception was taken cannot be brought up by affidavit of attorney, without effort to-obtain bystanders’ bill.
An accused, desiring to controvert a written statement, indorsed by the court on his bill of exceptions, approval of which was refused, that no exception was taken to the matters therein complained of, may raise the issue in his motion for new trial and tender evidence in support thereof, which may be preserved and brought up on appeal; but, having made no further effort to get the matter into the record by a bystanders’ bill or otherwise, it cannot be brought up by direct affidavit of his attorney.
10. Criminal law <&wkey;!092( 14) — Trial court, refusing bill of exceptions on ground no exceptions taken', properly refused to certify that argument complained of was indulged in.
In view of Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 744, under which improper argument of the prosecuting attorney cannot be considered on appeal, where no exception was taken thereto, the trial court, on refusing a bill of exceptions on the ground no exception was taken to improper argument therein complained of, did not err in refusing to certify that such argument was indulged in.
Appeal from' Floyd County Court; W. B. Claris, Judge.
Tom Donohue was convicted of aggravated assault, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Kinder, Bussell & Griffin and Austin C. Hatchell, all of Plainview, for appellant.
B. G. Storey, Asst.' Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMOBE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the county court of Floyd county of aggravated assault, and his punishment fixed at 12 months in the county jail and a fine of $100.
Appellant presents to us for our consideration what purports to he his bill of exceptions No. 5, accompanied by his affidavit to the facts therein stated. An examination of the contents of this document shows that it was presented to the trial court as a bill of exceptions, and that upon same the trial court made a written statement that no objection was made to the argument of the prosecuting attorney therein complained of, when such argument was made to the jury, and, further, that no exception was taken to said argument, and that the same was not allowed or approved as a bill of exceptions. Accepting the statements of the trial court as being correct, which fact does not appear to be disputed in any part of said purported bill of exceptions, or the affidavit accompanying same, it is clear that there is nothing before us in this connection which we can consider. If the attorney for appellant sat quietly by and permitted argument which he thought objectionable, and did not raise his voice in opposition thereto, and tools no bill of exceptions and asked no charge requesting the jury not to consider same, we would be without power to consider the matter as .same is here presented.
The separation of the jury is made the subject of complaint. This being a misdemeanor case, the separation of the jury is provided for by article 746, Vernon's O. C. P. In the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary, we must presume, that said separation was allowed in accordance with the provisions of said article, and that the proper instructions were given the jury and obeyed by them. We cannot accept here, as raising objections to the action of the trial court, ex parte statements as to conditions and surroundings which, from the standpoint of the appellant, might make the separation of the jury objectionable. Such matter should have been made the subject of an objection to such separation at the time, and should have been followed up by proof, or offered proof, of the fact that by reason of such separation some illegal and injurious matter took place from which injury was reasonably certain. An abuse of the discretion of the trial court in this matter would not ordinarily appear from a statement by appellant of the fact that there was feeling against him, and that the jury might have been exposed to hearing conversations between parties interested.
By his bill of exceptions No. 2 appellant complains that he was not allowed to ask a character witness for the defense, on redirect examination, what appellant's conduct had been toward her. There is nothing in the bill or the record which shows that the state upon cross-examination of said witness had asked her anything reflecting upon the relations of appellant toward her or his conduct with her, and in such case we see no reason why appellant should be allowed to go into his personal conduct toward said witness. Likewise, by appellant's bill of exceptions No. 3, he seeks to show by certain witnesses that, when present when lewd conversations were being had, appellant took no part in them, and had been heard to express his displeasure at same. We know of no rule of law holding such evidence admissible. Nothing appears in the state's cross-examination of appellant's character witnesses which would in any wise call for or justify such testimony.
Appellant's remaining bill of exceptions is directed at what he characterizes as the remarks of the private prosecutor, made during the examination of the prosecutrix as a witness. The bill of exceptions sets forth in question and answer form various things that occurred during said examination, there being remarks made by appellant's counsel, and also by state's counsel, which might have been omitted and the proceedings been more orderly. The particular matter complained of is stated in the bill as follows: It appears that, following remarks of both counsel, the attorney for appellant said to the court:
"We ask the court not to consider any of the remarks of counsel."
The private prosecutor said:
"The remarks of counsel on either side — I am willing to do that. Let the court instruct the jury not to consider the remarks of counsel on either side."
Appellant's counsel then said :
"I am talking about his; he can make an objection to my remarks, if I have said anything. I would like to ask a ruling of the court."
Thereupon the court said:
"The motion will be overruled."
Appellant's counsel then stated:
"We want a bill of éxception to the refusal of the court to instruct the jury not to consider the speech of Mr. Martin."
This leaves the matter of appellant's complaint in such an indefinite condition as to bring nothing before this court for review. Appellant first asked the court not to consider any of the remarks of counsel, and his last statement was to ask the court to instruct the jury not to consider the speech of Mr. Martin. The bill of exceptions contains probably a dozen remarks of Mr. Martin, private prosecuting counsel. At which of these this motion of appellant is directed we are unable to ascertain.
It is not necessary to state the evidence at length. Prosecutrix was a woman, being the mother of three children, all of whom were away from home on the day of the occurrence, which is the' basis of the prosecution. Appellant came to the house, and, after remaining for some time about the premises, according to prosecutrix, came into the house and grabbed her around the waist and pulled her close to him, and held her until she jerked loose. Conduct of this character would necessarily be exceedingly humiliating and offensive to a good woman, and if the jury believed the testimony we think they were justified in the punishment inflicted.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
®^>Por other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes