Case Name: W. P. Steele v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-11-08
Citations: 94 Tex. Crim. 345
Docket Number: No. 6512
Parties: W. P. Steele v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 94
Pages: 345–348

Head Matter:
W. P. Steele v. The State.
No. 6512.
Decided November 8, 1922.
Rehearing Denied May 9, 1923.
1. —Vagrancy—Recognizance—New Recognizance.
Where it was impossible in the condition of the records before this court to know whether any proper recognizance was entered upon the minutes of the court below, the appeal must be dismissed; however, where it was after-wards satisfactorily shown that appellant had executed the proper recognizance, the case is reinstated upon its merits.
2. —Same—Former Jeopardy — Bill of Exceptions.
Where the bill of exceptions complaining of the refusal of the court to submit his plea of former jeopardy, is in no way validated or approved by the court below, the same cannot be considered on appeal.
3. —Same—Declaration of Third Party.
Where the declaration was of a third party made in the presence and the hearing of the defendant, and was of a nature criminating to him and of such character as to call for a denial on his part, failure to make which would render the statement so made admissible, there is no reversible error.
4. —Same—Evidence—Res Gestae.
Where one of the counts of the information charged defendant with being a vagrant in that he consorted with prostitues, her statements in defendant’s presence and hearing at a time when he was found with her in a room alone at night was in the nature of res gestae, and was admissible in evidence.
5. —Same—Evidence—Moral Turpitude — Former Arrests — Rule Stated.
It has been held that a conviction for vagrancy is inadmissible for purposes of impeachment because the offense does not involve moral turpitude, this rule has been modified, however, to the extent that if it be shown that the vagrancy conviction or arrest was for that form of vagrancy consisting of being a common prostitute or inmate of a house of prostitution it will be held to involve moral turpitude, and is admissible in evidence; however, the testimony offered was not of this nature, and inadmissible.
Appeal from the County Court of Tarrant. Tried below before the Honorable P. W. Seward.
Appeal from a conviction of vagrancy; ■ penalty, a fine of one hundred dollars.
The opinion states the ease.
Mays & Mays, for appellant.
On question of declaration of third party, Bradshaw v. State, 155 S. W. Rep., 218; Kemper v. State, 138 id., 1025; on question of former arrests for vagrancy, Ellis v. State, 117 S. W. Rep., 978.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
Conviction is for vagrancy with punishment fixed at $100 fine.
The transcript before us totally fails to set out a recognizance. The only reference thereto is made immediately following the order overruling the motion for new trial and is in these words, "recognizance of defendant entered into the sum of $300 with W. P. Steele as principal and W. L. Hurst and B. O. McGee as sureties.''
We are unable to tell from the transcript whether this is a part of the order, or simply a notation by the clerk who prepared the transcript. Article 918, C. C. P. provides:
"When the defendant appeals in any case of misdemeanor from the judgment of the district or county court, he shall, if he be in custody, be committed to jail, unless he enter into recognizance to appear as hereinafter required; and, if he be not in custody, his notice of appeal shall have no effect whatever, until he enter into recognizance. ' '
Construing the foregoing article the opinions of this court have established that if appellant does not enter into recognizance (or appeal bond now permitted under Article 919, C. C. P.) he must be committed to jail pending his appeal. The record on appeal must show a sufficient recognizance or that appellant is in jail, otherwise the appeal will be dismissed. For cases collated see authorities under Article 918, supra. In the condition of the record before us it is impossible for us to know whether any proper recognizance was entered upon the minutes of the court, or whether the only entry with reference thereto consists of the quotation heretofore given.
It, therefore, becomes necessary to dismiss the appeal, and it is accordingly ordered.
Dismissed.