Case Name: YOUNG v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-02-17
Citations: 281 S.W. 1068
Docket Number: No. 9895
Parties: YOUNG v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 281
Pages: 1068–1069

Head Matter:
YOUNG v. STATE.
(No. 9895.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 17, 1926.
Rehearing Denied April 7, 1926.)
S. W. Dean, of Navasota, for appellant.
. Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat. Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMIORE, J.
Conviction for murder in district court of Grimes county, with punishment fixed at 10 years in the penitentiary.
We find in the transcript no bills of exception. In the statement of facts there appear several notations of objections to testimony, without anything to evidence the fact that an exception was taken save in one instance. Appellant offered in evidence the examining trial testimony of one Roy Beck-ham for impeachment purposes, claiming that said Beckham had. not testified in preliminary trial to anything relative to cursing, and that he desired to introduce that part of the testimony taken down in the examining trial which showed that said Beckham had not testified anything about cursing. The state thereupon offered all of said examining trial testimony. Appellant's counsel stated that they objected to it except for impeachment purposes. The state contended that, if one party introduced part of a document, the the other had a right to introduce the remainder. Appellant's counsel stated that they objected because this was the testimony had at a former trial of the case, a portion of which was introduced for impeachment purposes, and the remainder did not thereby become admissible. The court overruled the objection, and it is stated that to this appellant excepted.
It becomes evident from the above that appellant introduced the examining trial testimony for the purpose of showing that Beck-ham did not testify to certain things upon said trial. We are at a loss to know how he could establish the fact that said witness did not so testify, except by the introduction of all his examining trial testimony. Appellant could only make his proposed proof by a process of exclusion, and, without the introduction of all the testimony of the witness Beck-ham so given at the examining trial, we cannot see how he could satisfactorily show that said witness had not testified regarding cursing. The record wholly fails to show what part of the examining trial testimony appellant offered or introduced, and in this condition we cannot appraise the injury, if any, of the introduction of all the testimony. With the exception of the above, we find nothing in the statement of the facts introduced on the trial of the case which could in any way be construed as a bill of exceptions.
In his motion for new trial, appellant sets up misconduct of the jury, in that they discussed in their retirement certain matters. The court heard evidence on this point, and overruled the motion. We think the record discloses no abuse of the discretion of the trial court in the matter.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.