Case Name: Arthur Freeman v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1903-02-18
Citations: 44 Tex. Crim. 496
Docket Number: No. 2664
Parties: Arthur Freeman v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 496–503

Head Matter:
Arthur Freeman v. The State.
No. 2664.
Decided February 18, 1903.
Motion for Rehearing Decided March 26, 1903.
1. —Perjury—Evidence.
On a trial for perjury, assigned upon defendant’s testimony in the criminal case of one B. for. assault to murder, to the effect that he did not pick up the piece of newspaper introduced in evidence in the yard where the assaulted party was shot immediately after the shooting, it was admissible to prove by defendant’s attorney that, prior to putting him on the stand as a witness in B.’s case, he had talked, to him about what his evidence would be. The testimony was admissible to show that defendant’s false statement assigned as perjury was not made through inadvertence or under agitation, or by mistake. Following Washington v. State, 22 Texas Grim. App., 26.
ON REHEARING.
2. —Misconduct of Juror—Objection to.
Where a juror, on his voir dire examination had stated that he had no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the parties involved in the trial and was not present at their former trials, but subsequently, after certain evidence had been introduced, stated to the court that he had heard some of the evidence on the former trials, and may have sat as a juryman on one of the former trials. Whereupon counsel for defendant excepted to the conduct of the juror and stated “defendant would not acquiesce in the conduct of said juror.” Held, this was not tantamount to .a request that the court would withdraw the case from the jury, nor was it an objection to proceeding with the trial; and defendant, having failed to take such action, can not be heard to complain.
3. —Bill of Exceptions to Exclusion of Testimony.
A bill of exceptions to the exclusion of testimony is insufficient which does not show the object and purpose of its proposed introduction.
4. —Perjury—Evidence.
On a trial for perjury assigned upon alleged false testimony in a criminal case for assault to murder, the facts and circumstances attendant upon the assault to murder case, connecting the defendant in that case with the assault, were necessary facts admissible in evidence on the trial of defendant for perjury.
5. —Same—Indictment.
An objection to an indictment for perjury, that it was assigned upon two statements made by defendant as a witness in a criminal case and that it omitted the letter “s” from the word statement, is hypercritical.
6. —Same—Evidence Sufficient.
See opinion for evidence stated, held sufficient to support a conviction of perjury.
Appeal from the District Court of Erath. Tried below before Hon. W. J. Oxford.
Appeal from a conviction of perjury; penalty two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
This is the second appeal in this case. See Freeman v. State, 43 Texas Grim. Rep., 580. No additional statement to the one in that case, and the facts stated in the opinion in this case, is required.
J. B. Keith and J. T. Daniel, for appellant.
Lee Biddle, District Attorney, and Howard Martin, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of perjury, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years.
The State relied upon the alleged false statements made by appellant on the trial of Dock Baines for assault with intent to murder Minnie Freeman, in this: that he swore he did not pick up a portion of a certain newspaper called the "Ram's Horn," in the yard where Minnie Freeman was shot, immediately subsequent to the shooting of Minnie Freeman. The shooting occurred at night. It is not necessary to further state the evidence upon which the perjury was assigned. Arthur Freeman was used as a witness in the defense of Dock Baines.
J. B. Keith, Esq., who was one of Baines' counsel, on this trial was permitted to testify that the purpose of himself and counsel in using appellant as a witness in behalf of Dock Baines was to prove by him that the piece of paper picked up by him in the yard of J. C. Freeman, the night Minnie was shot was not torn in the same way as the one introduced in evidence, and that it was not the same piece of paper. Exception was reserved to this testimony because it was the conclusion and opinion of the witness and because the reason actuating counsel for Baines placing appellant on the stand in Baines' behalf could not bind defendant; and, whatever may have been their object or purpose, it in no way bound appellant, or could be admissible against him; and he could not be made to suffer for the acts, purpose, and intent of Baines' counsel in placing him on the stand. The bill of exceptions is qualified as follows: "That the witness testified further that, prior to putting Freeman on the stand in the Baines case, he talked to him about what his evidence would be."
"The reason and purpose, as well as the admissibility, of evidence is, we think, apparent. Our code declares that a false statement, made through inadvertence, or under agitation or by mistake, is not perjury. Now if, from the information derived previously from the witness, the attorney was induced to call him upon the stand to swear to the facts to which he did testify, it stands to reason that such statements, when thus sworn to, could not have been made through inadvertence, nor have been the result of agitation or mistake." Washington v. State, 22 Texas Crim. App., 26. Under this authority the action of the court was correct in admitting the testimony.
We believe the charge of the court as given sufficiently presented the issues arising under the testimony, and therefore there was no error in refusing the requested instructions. There being no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed. v