Case Name: O. E. (Shorty) Thomas v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-05-06
Citations: 101 Tex. Crim. 144
Docket Number: No. 8736
Parties: O. E. (Shorty) Thomas v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 144–149

Head Matter:
MAY, 1925.
O. E. (Shorty) Thomas v. The State.
No. 8736.
Delivered May 6, 1925.
Rehearing granted, June 17, 1925.
1. ' — Selling Intoxicating Liquor — Requested Charges — When Presented — Rule Stated.
Where on a trial for selling intoxicating liquor, the record on appeal does not show that appellant’s special charges requested, were presented to the trial court before the general charge was read to the jury, under Art. 733 Vernon’s C. C. P., this court is not authorized to consider same.
2. —Same—New Trial — Impeaching Verdict — Not Permissible.
Where on a motion for a new trial appellant sought to show that the jury in deliberating on the case did consider as incriminatory, statements introduced, of evidence given before the grand jury by state’s witnesses. A verdict of a jury cannot be impeached in this manner, and the court properly overruled the motion. See Esquivel v. State, 246 S. W. 399 Branch’s Ann. Tex. Statutes Sec. 576.
3. —Same—Evidence—Flight of Defendant — -Properly Admitted.
Evidence that at the time of the holding of the court of enquiry at Nocona enquiring into liquor violations, the appellant had left Nocona, and had gone to Oklahoma, was properly admitted, any objection to its admissibility going to its weight, rather than to its pertinency.
4. -Same — Witness—Examination of — Ho Error Presented.
Where appellant complains that the county attorney was permitted to exhibit to a witness his testimony given before the grand jury, and to hold a whispered conversation with him, while on the stand the bill presenting this matter, failing to set out what was said by the county attorney to said witness is defective and discloses no error. See Branch Ann P. C. Sec. 207 and 210.
ON BEHEABING
5. —Same—Evidence—Witness’s Former Statements — Improperly Admitted.
° Under some circumstances, as where the State’s counsel is surprised by his witness giving hurtful testimony against the State, his prior statement out of court may be used against him. So, when his testimony is indefinite, his memory may be refreshed by allowing him to examine, or by calling his attention to his former statement. In neither event, however, can his foimer statement be introduced as original evidence to be used by the jury to prove the guilt of the accused. See Bryan v. State, 234 S. W. 234 and numerous other cases cited.
6. —Same—Continued.
In permitting the State’s attorney to read to the jury the testimony of State’s prosecuting witness Bill Bowdry a written statement made and signed by said witness before the grand jury, the learned trial court fell into error, that necessitates a reversal of this cause.
Appeal from the District Court of Montague County. Tried below before the Hon. Paul Donald, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for selling intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case,
J. S. Jameson, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State's Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
BAKER, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Montague County for selling intoxicating liquors and his punishment assessed at one year's confinement in the penitentiary.
The record discloses that the appellant filed no exceptions to the charge of the trial court, but complains of the refusal of the court to give his special charges to the jury, and brings forward said complaint in his bills of exception. Neither the special charges nor the bills of exception relating, thereto show that they were presented to the court before the general charge was read to the jury, as required by Vernon's C. C. P., Art. 735, and for that reason we are authorized under the law to consider same.
Appellant also complains of the action of the court in not granting him a new trial for the alleged misconduct of the jury while considering their verdict. This bill of exception shows the court héard testimony to the effect that some of the jurors considered statements made by the witnesses on the stand which was supposed to have been testified to by said witnesses in the grand jury; the court after hearing the evidence overruled the motion for a new trial and we see no error therein. Esquivel v. State, 246 S. W. 399; Branch Ann. Statutes, Sect. 575.
The other bills of exception in the record complain of the admission of testimony upon the part of the State to the effect that the sheriff and other State's witnesses testified that they did not find «the defendant in the town of Nocona on the day they held a court of inquiry there, alleging that said testimony was injurious to the defendant, in that it did not show that he was guilty of the offense charged against him. .We fail to find any harmful error in this particular. The defendant failed to testify in the case, and the evidence showed that about the time inquired about he had left and gone to Oklahoma, and in view of the record we are unable to see how the defendant was injured in this particular.
There is also complaint made of the action of the court in permitting the attorney for the State to exhibit to the State's witnesses, the alleged testimony of said witnesses before the grand jury and to ask them concerning their signing same and whispering to said witnesses while upon the witness stand but do not state what the County Attorney said, nor what the statements contained and in this particular said bills are defective and we cannot consider same. Branch Ann. P. C., Secs. 207 and 210.
We have carefully examined the entire record in this case, and are of the opinion that the defendant has had a fair trial, and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.
Affirmed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been _ examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.