Case Name: HUGHES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-03-08
Citations: 136 S.W. 1068
Docket Number: 
Parties: HUGHES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 136
Pages: 1068–1071

Head Matter:
HUGHES v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 8, 1911.
On Rehearing, April 5, 1911.)
1. Bail (§ 67 ) — Recognizance on Appeal.
A recognizance on appeal which fails to show the court in which accused was tried, and before which he obligates himself to appear, is fatally defective, and the appeal must be dismissed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 284; Dec. Dig. § 67. ]
On Rehearing.
2. Homicipe (§ 340 ) — Assault with Intent to Mubdeb — Evidence—Instructions.
Where, on a trial for assault with intent to murder, the evidence showed that prosecutor was struck on the side of his head with the larger end of a billiard cue, fracturing his skull, necessitating the taking out of pieces of thé bone, the failure to properly define “deadly weapon” in the instructions was not reversible error.
[Ed. Note. — For cither cases, see Homicide, Dec. Dig. § 340. ]
3. Criminal Daw (§ 1134 ) — Assault with Intent' to Mubdeb — Instructions—Materiality.
Where accused, on a trial for assault with intent to murder, was convicted of aggravated assault and the court properly charged on aggravated assault, instructions on assault with intent to kill were immaterial and would not be considered on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 1134. ]
4. Criminal Daw (§ 74i ) — Evidence—Ques- ' tion for. Juey.
The jury are the judges of the weight of the testimony in a criminal case.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1705, 1713, 1716, 1717, 1727, 1728; Dec. Dig. § 741. ]
5. Criminal Law (§ 706 ) — Evidence—Admissibility.
Where, on a trial for crime, the issue was whether accused or his brother committed the ofEense, and the testimony as to the identity of accused was meager, the action o£ the district attorney in asking a witness questions, for the purpose of bringing before the jury statements by accused’s father, made in the absence of accused, that he believed that accused was the guilty party, was erroneous.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 706. ]
6. Criminal Law (§ 671 ) — Exclusion of J uby — Statutes .
Proceedings under Code Or. Proc. arts. 37. 709, to compel a witness to testify on being granted immunity, must be had in the absence of the jury, until it is determined that immunity will be given.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1591, 1592; Dec. Dig. § 671. ] I
7. Criminal Law (§ 706 ) — Evidence — Admissibility.
Where, on a trial for crime, the issue was whether accused or his brother committed the offense, and the testimony on the identity of accused was meager, the action of the district attorney in attempting, in the presence of the jury, to procure the testimony of the brother after the court had refused to grant him immunity, on a conditional agreement offered by tbe district attorney, was reversible error.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 706. ]
Appeal from District Court, Potter County ; J. N. Browning, Judge.
Luther Hughes was convicted of aggravated assault, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
D. W. Odell and H. H. Cooper, for appellant. Henry S. Bishop, Dist. Atty., and C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series .& Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was indicted for assault with intent to murder. Upon a trial he was convicted of aggravated assault.
The Assistant Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, because of the insufficiency of the recognizance, in that it fails to show the punishment assessed, and fails to show the court in which the defendant was tried and before which he obligates himself to appear. In the case of Thompson v. State, 35 Tex. Or. R. 505, 34 S. W. 124, 612, Judge Henderson, rendering the opinion, says: "The appellant's recognizance, omitting the prior portions, recites: 'And who has been convicted of said offense in this court shall appear from day to day and from term to term of the same and not depart without leave of this court.' It will be observed that this obligation does not specify the court before which the appellant 'shall appear from day_ to day.' The statute requires that this shall be done. Looking upon the terms of this instrument, the principal may as well be required to appear before this court as before the court of conviction, and it is patent that no court is specified before which he is to appear. For this reason we are of opinion this recognigance is fatally defective."
The motion is sustained, and the cause dismissed.