Case Name: Scotty Ferguson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-10-07
Citations: 101 Tex. Crim. 670
Docket Number: No. 8715
Parties: Scotty Ferguson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 670–675

Head Matter:
Scotty Ferguson v. The State.
No. 8715.
Delivered October 7, 1925.
Rehearing Denied November 11, 1925.
1. —Manslaughter—Continuance—Diligence Not Sufficient — Properly Refused.
Where on a' trial for manslaughter, the cause having been previously tried and appealed, and a reversal had, a motion for a subsequent continuance on account of absent witnesses, some of whom were present, and not used on the former trial, and some of whom were only summoned to appear at the last trial, though residents of the county and known to appellant, and the facts expected to be proven by them necessarily known to appellant at the former trial, diligence is lacking, and the continuance was properly refused.
2. —Same—Evidence—Prejudice Against Deceased — Admissible.
It is a long and well settled rule in this state, that a witness introduced upon the trial by appellant, and who testifies in his behalf may be shown, to have ill will, or to be prejudiced against the deceased. See Sec. 162, Branch’s Ann P. C. for collation of authorities.
3. —Same—Evidence—Held, Properly Excluded.
Where appellant, in an effort to rebut .evidence that his witness Cartel was prejudiced against deceased, offered to prove the action of a mass meeting of the citizens of Mexia, relative to deceased, such testimony was properly excluded, it not being shown that the action of such mass meeting created the prejudice of the witness against the deceased. In any event, appellant’s bill failing to disclose what he expected to prove in reference to such mass meeting, presents no error.
4. —Same—Bill of Exception — Unintelligible—Not Considered.
Where a bill of exception refers to “recommendations,” and “charges.” and “evidence adduced on cross-examination by the state” none of which are set out in the bill, this court has no means of discovering what the complaint is directed toward, and cannot therefore pass upon the questions sought to be presented in such bill.
5. —Same—Evidence—Impeaching Witness — Held, not Improper.
A witness can always be impeached by showing that he has been convicted of a felony, and where evidence is presented that a witness has been charged in the Federal Court with the possession of intoxicating liquor, unless, it be shown that such] charge was for a first offense, and therefore not a felony, such evidence is properly received.
OX BEHEABIXS.
6. —Same—Continuance—Supplemental Application — Properly Overruled.
Where a subsequent application for a continuance was presented upon the instant trial, and overruled, and a supplemental motion presented, on account of the absence of the witness Allen, who had been previously subpoenaed, but not used as a witness, it being averred that such witness, was out of the state, we do not believe that the diligence used to secure the attendance of said witness was sufficient, and especially so in view of the long period of time since the returning of the indictment, and the former trial.
7. —Same—Evidence—Hearsay—Properly Excluded.
Where on cross-examination of a defense witness Carter, he admitted that he had been discharged as a peace officer because of charges made against him, and on re-direct examination he was permitted to testify that he had been recommended for reinstatement, there was no error in excluding' the written instrument which contained the recommendation for his reinstatement together with the signatures thereon, such writing being hearsay statement of third parties.
Appeal from the District Court of Limestone County. Tried below before the Hon. A. M. Blackmon, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, five years in the penitentiary.
This is the second appeal of this case. See 253 S. W., 290. The facts are sufficiently stated in the former opinion.
O. F. Watkins, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Limestone County of manslaughter, and his punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary.
This is the second appeal of this case. See 253 S. "W. Rep. 290. The facts are sufficiently stated in the form'er opinion.
There are seven bills of exception. We are not informed by the bill complaining of the refusal of a continuance, how many prior applications had been presented, but it is not claimed that this was a first application. The bill taken to its refusal is qualified by the trial judge who states that three of the absent witnesses were present at a former term and were not used. There appears no sufficient showing of diligence as to the other three witnesses. Complaint is also made of the refusal of a supplemental application. This bill is also qualified by a statement that at a former trial the absent witness, Allen, was neither summoned nor called to appear as a witness, though a resident of the county. The facts stated as expected were necessarily known to appellant, — and as material at said former trial as at any subsequent time. Diligence is lacking.
Any facts and'circumstances showing ill-will and prejudice of a witness for the defense against -the deceased are admissible. See authorities collated in Sec. 162, Branch's Annotated P. C.
The fourth bill of exceptions shows, no error. The question therein shown to have been propounded to defense witness, Carter, with reference to the action of a mass meeting of the citizens of Mexia and what they did and said relative to deceased, was not admissible and could not rebut the inference of prejudice on the part of said witness Carter, arising from other facts in evidence. The court further qualifies the bill by stating that no information was given him as to those matters set out in the bill of exceptions as the "further testimony" of said witness, had he been permitted to answer said question.
Bill of exceptions No. 6, is unintelligible. It refers to "recommendations" and "charges" and "'evidence adduced on cross-examination by the State", none of which are set out, and we have no means of knowing if the complaints be well founded.
An offense is classed as a felony in this State when punishment is fixed by statute by confinement in the penitentiary, even though as an alternative. It was not error to admit proof that a defense witness had pleaded guilty to possession of intoxicating liquor in the Federal court, he having admitted on oral examination that he had been charged with said offense but claimed that it had been dismissed, there being nothing in the record showing it to be a first offense, and the punishment for such offense being fixed in the alternative at confinement in the Federal penitentiary.
Finding no error in the record the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.