Case Name: CAMPBELL v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1910-04-13
Citations: 138 S.W. 607
Docket Number: 
Parties: CAMPBELL v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 138
Pages: 607–611

Head Matter:
CAMPBELL v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 13, 1910.
On Motion for Rehearing, June 14, 1911.)
1. Bail (§ 66 ) — Appeai>-Recognizance.
A recognizance, which does not state the amount of the punishment assessed against accused, as required by Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 887, is fatally defective, and the appeal must be dismissed.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 285; Dec. Dig. § 65. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal Law (§ 1088 ) — Appeal—Questions Reviewable — Bills op Exception.
Matters assigned in bills of exception not in the record cannot be considered on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — -Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2800; Dee. Dig. § 1088. ]
3. Witnesses (§ 243 ) — Examination op Witnesses — Leading Questions — Discretion oe Court.
Where, on a trial for assault to rape prose-cutrix, 13 years old, it appeared that while testifying she cried, and the state had to coax her to give testimony, the court did not err in permitting the state to ask her, “Did he [accused] say anything about giving him some?”
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 795, 847; Dec. Dig. § 243. ]
4. Witnesses (§ 243 ) — Examination—Leading Questions — Discretion of Court.
The court, on the examination of a witness of immature years and laboring under excitement, may permit leading questions in its discretion.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 795, 847; Dee. Dig. § 243. ]
5. Criminal Law ' (§§ 419, 420 ) — Evidence— Hearsay Evidence.
Statements of a third person, not a witness in the case, made in the absence of accused and prosecutrix, cannot be proved by the state or accused.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 973-983; Dec. Dig. §§ 419, 420. ]
6. Criminal Law (§ 400 ) — Evidence—Secondary Evidence.
In the absence of ^roof of the loss or destruction of a letter, its contents cannot be proved by a witness who had read the letter.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 879-886; Dee. Dig. § 400. ]
7. Witnesses (§ 395 ) — Impeachment—Corroboration.
Where accused on trial for assault to rape sought to impeach prosecutrix by her mother as to what prosecutrix said after the occurrence, the testimony of a conversation with prosecu-trix, a few days after the occurrence, in support of her testimony on the trial, was admissible.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. § 1260; Dec. Dig. § 395. ]
8. Criminal Law (§ 699 ) — Trial — Argument of Counsel — Power of Court.
As the court may limit the argument of counsel to the evidence, and must so conduct the case as to keep from the jury all matters not in evidence, it may instruct the jury not to consider outside matters inadvertently or intentionally brought to their attention by counsel in argument.
[Ed. Law, 699. ] Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Cent. Dig. §§ 1655, 1656; Dee. Dig. §
9. Criminal Law (§ 726 ) — Argument of State’s Counsel in Response to Improp- ' er Argument of Counsel for Accused.
Where counsel for accused discussed matters outside of the record, accused could not complain of objectionable remarks by state’s counsel in response to such argument.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1681; Dec. Dig. § 726. ]
10. Criminal Law (§ 1037 ) — Improper Argument of Counsel — Review — Instruc- . TIONS.
. In the absence of a requested charge directing the jury not to consider improper argument of state’s counsel, the" court on appeal will not review the matter.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1691, 2645; Dec. Dig. § 1037. ]
11. Witnesses (§'337 )—Cross-Examination oi? Accused—Extent.
Accused, testifying on lis own behalf, is subject to the same cross-examination as any other witness, and he may be asked about bis conviction of offenses involving turpitude to discredit him, if such offenses are recent.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases,, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. § 1113; Dee. Dig. § 337. ]
12. Witnesses (§ 350 )—Cross-Examination —CONOLUSIVENESS OE ANSWERS.
Where accused, testifying in his own behalf, was cross-examined to affect his credibility on a matter about which he had nbt been indicted, and the questions did not indicate facts justifying .an indictment, his answers could not be contradicted.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. § 1149; Dec. Dig. § 350. ]
13. Witnesses (§ 337 )—Impeachment—Ac-cused.
Where accused, on trial for an assault with intent to rape, testified in his own behalf, it was error to show extraneous matters having no tendency to affect his credibility as a witness, but only to create a prejudice against Mm as being an immoral man.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 1129-1132; Dec. Dig. § 337. ]
Appeal from District Court, Hunt County; R. D. Porter, Judge.
John Campbell was convicted of crime, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Sam D. Stinson, for appellant.
John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
The Assistant Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the recognizance is defective.
The recognizance does not state the amount of the punishment assessed against appellant as required by article 887, C. C. P. 1895. The recognizance being defective, the motion is sustained. See May v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 196, 49 S. W. 402.
The appeal is dismissed.