Case Name: CROSS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-01-14
Citations: 268 S.W. 931
Docket Number: No. 8573
Parties: CROSS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 268
Pages: 931–932

Head Matter:
CROSS v. STATE.
(No. 8573.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 14, 1925.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1925.)
1. Criminal law <§=>363 — 'Testimony as to finding paris green about defendant’s premises two days after alleged poisoning held admissible.
In prosecution for poisoning food, testimony as to finding paris green about defendant’s premises on second day after occurrence held admissible as res gestse.
2. Criminal law <§=i09l (4) — Bill of exceptions to nonexpert testimony must show witnesses’ lack of knowledge or necessity of expert knowledge.
Bill of exceptions to nonexpert testimony must show witnesses’ lack of knowledge on subject, or necessity of expert knowledge, to authorize reversal.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal law <§=>936(6) — Absence of witnesses cannot be raised for first time by motion for new trial.
Defendant filing no written motion for permission to withdraw announcement of ready and for continuance or postponement of trial, under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 616, on discovering that his witnesses would not be present, cannot set up their absence as ground of motion for new trial.
Appeal from District Court, Haskell County; W. R. Chapman, Judge.
Robert Cross was convicted of poisoning food with intent to injure others, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
L. D. Ratliff and Dennis P. Ratliff, both of Haskell, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
By indictment appellant was charged with mixing poison with food with the intent to injure Ei. 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 schbolhouse 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 schoolhouse 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 stated in one of the bills, Holmsley testified :
"I found some green powder looting 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 á 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 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 35 S. W. 661; Bratt v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 122, 41 S. W. 622; Holder v. State, 81 Tex. Cr. R. 197, 194 S. W. 162. No complaint is made of the charge of'the court.
The judgment is affirmed.
<§=>For otter oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-NumDered Digests and Indexes