Case Name: DEAL v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-01-07
Citations: 268 S.W. 746
Docket Number: No. 8929
Parties: DEAL v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 268
Pages: 746–748

Head Matter:
DEAL v. STATE.
(No. 8929.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 7, 1925.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 1925.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;l 122(3,4) — Court cannot determine whether charge on accomplice testimony was harmful error, where it has no knowledge of proof made.
• Where appellate court is without knowledge of proof that was made, it cannot determine whether harmful error was committed in giving alleged objectionable charge on accomplice testimony and refusing defendant’s special charge on same subject.
2. Criminal law t&wkey;l 144(13) — In absence of statement of facts, evidence'presumed sufficient to support verdict.
■ In absence of statement of facts, evidence is .presumed sufficient to support verdict.
On Rehearing.
3. Criminal law &wkey;>72l (3) — Remark held not reversible error as comment on defendant’s failure to testify, where not known whether accused would testify or not.
Remark of state’s attorney, if “he wants to put defendant on the stand, we will let him be put on,” held not reversible error as comment on defendant’s failure to testify, it being in nature of an objection to a statement by defendant’s counsel as to what he had said, and it was not then known to state’s counsel whether accused would be a witness or not.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;>I099(l) — Statement of facts not approved by trial judge not considered.
A statement of facts not approved by trial judge will not be considered, even though it is properly before court by insertion in record.
5. Criminal law <&wkey;1115(2) — Overruling of motion to quash panel sustained, where evidence in support of motion not shown.
Where truth of matters upon which motion to quash jury panel was based do not appear either by statement of facts or bill, of exceptions, appellate court will uphold overruling of motion.
Appeal from District Court, Eastland County; E. A. Hill, Judge.
Burette Deal was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
J. Lee Cearley, of Cisco, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
For opinion on second motion for rehearing, see 269 S. W. 433.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is the manufacture of. intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement. in the penitentiary for one year.
There is no statement of the evidence heard upon the trial.
We understand from bill of exceptions No. 2 that during the progress of the trial state's counsel, in the presence of the jury, said:
"If he wants to put the defendant on the stand, we will let him be put on."
This occurred while the appellant's counsel was addressing the court with reference to the admissibility of certain testimony touching declarations of the appellant, the admission of which the state opposed. Appellant objected to the' remark, and the court instructed the jury to disregard it. We fail to find anything in the bill showing that the appellant did not become a witness. Complaint of the refusal of the accused to testify cannot be sustained when it is not shown by the bill that the accused did not testify. Quinney v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 358, 216 S. W. 882; Tillman v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 10, 225 S. W. 165; Gonzales v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 248, 226 S. W. 405.
The court instructed the jury that the witness Prickett was an accomplice, and informed the jury of the law touching the necessity for corroboration of an accomplice witness. The language selected by the court is like that in Campbell's Case, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 302, 123 S. W. 583. This charge has been criticized as inaccurate in some respects and as not applicable to every case. See Anderson v. State, 95 Tex. Cr. R. 352, 254 S. W. 986 (motion for rehearing). Whether in a given case the use of the charge mentioned or the failure to give an accurate one would work a reversal would depend upon the facts which were before the jury. Without knowledge of the proof that was made, this court is not in a position to determine that in giving the charge mention%d and in refusing the appellant's special charge on the subject of accomplice testimony harmful error was committed. See Abbott v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 31, 250 S. W. 188; Watson v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 583, 237 S. W. 298.
There was no error shown in refusing to instruct the jury to acquit the appellant. The evidence, aside from that of the ae-i complice, may have been ample.
In the absence of a statement of facts, the presumption is indulged in favor of the judgment that the evidence was sufiicient to support the verdict.
The judgment is affirmed.
<g=s>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
(&wkey;?For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes