Case Name: Arthur Bird v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-12-05
Citations: 96 Tex. Crim. 117
Docket Number: No. 7322
Parties: Arthur Bird v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 117–121

Head Matter:
Arthur Bird v. The State.
No. 7322.
Decided December 5, 1923.
1. —Selling Intoxicating Liquor — Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of selling intoxicating liquors, the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction there is no reversible error.
2. —Same—Moral Turpitude — Witness.
Where the witness had been charged by complaint in a justice’s court with assault to rob in 1909, and no indictment had ever been returned against him thereafter, there was no error in refusing to permit counsel for the defense to introduce testimony of moral turpitude thereby.
3. —Same—Accomplice—Purchaser.
The purchaser of intoxicating liquor is expressly exempted from being deemed an accomplice, and there was no error in not charging on accomplice testimony.
4. —Same—Rehearing—Charge of Court.
Where defendant was charged with selling spirituous and vinous liquor capable of producing intoxication, and the evidence showed that he sold whisky and wine, there was no error in the court’s charge which instructed the jury that if appellant sold spirituous or vinous liquors to convict him.
5. —Same—Evidence—Impeaching Witness.
Authorities may not be cited to show that it is improper to impeach a witness by proving specific violations of the law, and there was no error in refusing to permit the witness to be interrogated with regard to his alleged false testimony given at the January term; besides, an indictment not following an arrest before the justice court, such testimony was inadmissible for the purpose of impeachment.
6. —Same—Evidence—Habits of Witness.
The testimony sought on cross-examination of the witness, Wininger, relative to whether he had testified before that his drinking corn whisky then- was his first venture, being immaterial there was no error in refusing its admission.
7. —Same—Misdemeanor—Moral Turpitude.
There was no error in refusing to permit appellant to cross-examine State’s witness, Burson, relative to his coming to town with some liquor and raising cain, etc., as this was a misdemeanor and will not show moral turpitude.
8. —Same—Immaterial Testimony.
It was immaterial that the State’s witness Wininger was sent by the sheriff out to the home of appellant on the occasion of the alleged sale of liquor.
9. —Same—Charge of Court — Accomplice—Requested Charge.
Where the requested charge on accomplice testimony was refused and no exception thereto presented on this ground, and besides there is nothing in the contention, there is no reversible error.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Williamson County. Tried below before the Honorable James R. Hamilton.
Appeal from a conviction of selling intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion.states the case.
J. F. Taulbee, and Wilcox & Graves, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
On the question of moral turpitude, Bowers v. State, 71 S. W. Rep., 284; Wright v. State, 63 Texas Crim. Rep., 429.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
— Appellant Appellant was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Williamson county of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
The evidence seems to amply support the verdict. According to the State's ease three young men went to appellant's house and bought from him a half gallon of whisky and some wine for which they paid $8.00. The liquor was intoxicating. On behalf of appellant there was no testimony introduced denying that given by the State-witnesses.
Appellant complains that he was denied the privilege of asking State witness Wininger if he was not charged with assault to rob in 1909. It is made to appear from the bill of exceptions that when the question was asked the jury were retired and in the jury's absence the witness stated to the court that a complaint had been filed against him in 1909 for assault to rob but that it had never progressed beyond the justice court; that the grand jury had met and adjourned and no indictment had ever been returned against him. Mr. Branch cites a number of cases on page 101 of his Annotated P. C. sustaining the proposition that where a party is charged with felony by complaint only and sufficient time has elapsed for indictment and none has been presented, proof that such complaint was made against him is not admissible to impeach him. We do not think the trial court erred in not instructing' the jury that the witness Wininger was an accomplice. Our statute expressly exempts he purchaser of liquor from being deemed an accomplice. We .urther observe that there was no exception to the court's charge on this ground and no special charge asked. However, if such had been the case it would not have been necessary for the court to so aharge, under our present statute.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.