Case Name: ROBINSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-06-14
Citations: 244 S.W. 599
Docket Number: No. 7057
Parties: ROBINSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 244
Pages: 599–600

Head Matter:
ROBINSON v. STATE.
(No. 7057.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 14, 1922.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 8, 1922.)
1. Grand jury &wkey;>l I — Excusing from list certain men, and instructing sheriff to summon others, not error.
-In excusing from the list of grand jurors certain men drawn thereon, and instructing the sheriff to summon others to take their places, there was no error, the law regarding the formation of a grand jury not being construed so that the trial court may not excuse from service on the grand jury citizens whose reasons as presented to the court appeal to his sound discretion, and are such as to justify his action.
2. Witnesses <&wkey;>344 (2) — Refusal to permit proof that state witness registered at hotel as wife of man not her husband not error.
In an intoxicating liquor prosecution, where there was no effort made to show the general reputation of a state witness, a refusal to permit defendant to prove that witness on one occasion registered at a hotel as the wife of a man with whom she stayed that night, who was not her husband, was not error.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;>982 — Refusal to submit issue of suspended sentence not error, where defendant 50 years of age.
Where the charge against defendant was a violation of xthe amended Dean Law (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 5SSV4a et seq.) for selling intoxicating liquor, and the proof showed he was a man 50 years of age, there was no error to decline to submit the issue of suspended sentence.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Indictment and information &wkey;>l37(2) — Attack on array comes too late when presented first on motion to quash indictment.
In view of Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 409, which provides that any person, before the grand jury has been impaneled, imay challenge the array of jurors, and in no other way shall Objections be heard, and article 412 names as a ground of challenge to the array that persons summoned as grand jurors are not in fact persons selected by the grand jury commissioners, an attack on the grand jury comes’ too late when presented for the first time on motion to quash the indictment, where no showing was made that defendant was deprived of a right to make the attack by challenge in limine.
Appeal from District Court, Eastland County; E. A. Hill, Judge.
R. R. Robinson was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Chastain, Judkins & Chastain, of Eastland, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Eastland county. of the offense of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
We are unable to agree with appellant's contention as set forth in his bill of exceptions No. 1 that the trial court committed error in excusing from the list of grand jurors certain men drawn thereon, and in instructing the sheriff to summon other men to take the places of those so excused. We do not think the law regarding the formation of a grand jury should have such rigid and inflexible construction as that the trial court may not excuse from service on such grand jury citizens whose reasons as presented to the court appeal to his sound discretion and were such as to seem to justify such action. Garrett v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 480, 146 S. W. 930.
Appellant complains by his bill of exceptions No. 2 of the introduction in evidence of his confession. We find nothing in said bill of exceptions in any way substantiating appellant's objections as stated to the reception of such confession. The officer who took same testified that he gave the defendant a warning, apparently in the terms, of the statute, and that after said warning was given the accused proceeded to make the statement introduced in evidence. A statement in the bill of exceptions that said confession was extorted by threats of personal violence would not appear to be sustained, in the absence of some showing in said bill of said fact further than the statement thereof by appellant's counsel in stating the ground of his objection.
We do not believe any error appears in bill of exceptions No. 3 which complains of the refusal of the trial court to permit appellant to prove that a state witness on one occasion registered at a hotel as the wife of a man with whom she stayed that night, who was not her husband. There is ho effort made to show the general reputation of said witness, or to attack her in any way except by an attempt to prove the isolated matter just mentioned. McIntosh v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 239 S. W. 622.
Appellant has two bills of exception complaining of the argument of the state's attorney. We have carefully examined each of said bills, and find nothing in same which in our opinion would call for a reversal of this case.
There was no error on the part of 'the trial court in declining to submit to the jury the issue of suspended sentence. The charge against appellant was a violation of the amended Dean Law (Vernon's Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588(4 et seq.), and the uncontroverted proof in the case showed he was a man 50 years of age. The benefit of suspended sentence in such case is denied by statute.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
<S=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes