Case Name: Robert Cross v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-01-14
Citations: 99 Tex. Crim. 207
Docket Number: No. 8575
Parties: Robert Cross v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 207–211

Head Matter:
JANUARY, 1925.
Robert Cross v. The State.
No. 8575.
Delivered January 14, 1925.
Rehearing denied February 25, 1925.
1. —Poisoning Food — Evidence—Properly Admitted.
Where upon a trial for poisoning food with intent to injure, it was not error to permit two witnesses to testify as to finding particles of paris green, in appellant’s buggy, and around the well of the alleged poisoned prosecutor, and that there were found under the seat of appellant’s buggy two pieces of paste board box, which had on them what looked like paris green.
2. —Same—Evidence—Expert Knowledge — Not Necessary.
It was not error for the court to admit the testimony of the witnesses Guinn and Gregory. Their testimony was not too remote, nor was it required of them that they should have technical or expert knowledge to identify Paris green. Witnesses testified to facts which showed a familiarity with the substance, and appellant’s bill does not show a lack of knowledge by them of the subject, nor that expert knowledge was necessary. Such showing in the bill would be essential to authorize a reversal. See Dane v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. Rep., 84 and other cases cited.
ON BEHEAEING.
3. —Same—Motion for New Trial — Absent Witnesses — Postponement Not Re-
quested.
In his motion for a new trial appellant sets up the unexpected absence of several witnesses, who had been subpoenaed, and who for unavoidable rea sons were not in attendance. After discovering that these witnesses would not be present, be filed no written motion for a continuance or postponement of the trial. Many cases will be found collated under Art. 616, C. C. P., holding that such a proceeding is requisite, and that in its absence the matter cannot be raised upon a motion for' a new trial. See also sec. 340' page 195 Branch’s Ann, P. C.
Appeal from the District Court of Haskell County. Tried below before the Hon. W. R. Chapman, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for poisoning food, with intent to injure; penalty, two years in the penitentiary.
The- opinion states the case.
L. D. Ratliff and Dennis Ratliff, for appellant.
- Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
By indictment appellant was charged with mixing poison with food with the intent to injure E. S. Dunlap and other persons unknown to the grand jury; upon conviction his punishment was fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.
The reliance of the State was upon circumstantial evidence which is deemed sufficient to support the finding of the jury to the effect that Paris Green was, by the appellant, put in the coffee pot used by Dunlap with the intent to poison him. Appellant testified and denied the commission of the offense.
The State's theory, supported by the testimony, is this: Dunlap was a creditor of the appellant's mother, and lived alone. Traveling in his buggy, appellant went to the home of Dunlap, passing a school-house on the way. While at the home of Dunlap appellant got a bucket of water from the cistern and put it on a shelf on the porch of Dunlap's house. Appellant's arrival was late in the evening. Dunlap prepared and ate supper, of which appellant did not partake, claiming to have been ill. Dunlap became violently ill during the night. Appellant left early the next morning. Paris Green was found in the coffee pot used by Dunlap at supper, also at the water-bucket, the cistern and along the road which was traveled by appellant. At the school-house mentioned there was found a box which, according to the testimony, had contained Paris Green, and upon which box was the cost mark of a merchant, who, a short time before, had sold a box of Paris Green to the appellant. The box found was identified by the merchant.
Bills of exception complain of the receipt in evidence of the testimony of Gregory and Holmsley to the effect that on the second day after the occurrence they examined the buggy which was at the home of the appellant, and which had been used by him in traveling] to the house of Dunlap, and found under the seat, two pieces of a paste board box. Gregory said it had on it what looked like Paris Green. Quoting him:
"In my opinion that is Paris Green on it. I have not personally had any experience in using Paris Green; I have seen it used in poisoning cotton several years."
As shown in one of the bills, Holmsley testified:
"I found some green powder-looking stuff; looked like Paris Green; that is what I thought it was."
Guinn said that he examined the premises of Dunlap and found little specks of Paris Green on the ground near the cistern. He also found Paris Green on the gallery of the house, in the water bucket on the kitchen floor, and in the coffee pot. He said he had used Paris Green in killing worms and ants, and was acquainted with it.
Two objections were urged against the testimony of each of these witnesses. One was to the point that the evidence was too remote and was not res gestae. This objection, we think, was not tenable. The conditions described by the witnesses were relevant circumstances tending to support the State's case. "We have failed to perceive any evidence in the record requiring a technical or expert knowledge to identify Paris Green, that is, to recognize it when it is seen. The witnesses Guinn and Gregory, however, testified to facts which show a familiarity with the substance. Holmsley's testimony was cumulative of theirs upon an issue which was not controverted, that is, that on the box found in the buggy of the appellant was a powder which looked like Paris Green, and which the witness thought was Paris Green. The bill does not show a lack of knowledge on the subject, nor that expert knowledge was necessary. Such showing in the bill would be essential to authorize a reversal. Dane v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 84; Bratt v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 122; Holder v. State, 81 Texas Crim. Rep., 197.
No complaint is made of the charge of the court.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.