Case Name: HINTON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-01-10
Citations: 144 S.W. 617
Docket Number: 
Parties: HINTON v. STATE.
Judges: PRENDERGAST, J., absent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 144
Pages: 617–620

Head Matter:
HINTON v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 10, 1912.
On Rehearing, Feb. 21, 1912.)
1. Bail (§ 65 ) — Appeal—Insufficiency of Recognizance.
A recognizance, stating that appellant has been convicted of the “offense of aggravated assault,” is insufficient to support an appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 285; Dec. Dig. § 65. ]
On Rehearing.
2. Criminal Law (§ 1131 ) — Appeal—Reinstatement.
An appeal, dismissed for insufficiency of the recognizance, will be reinstated on filing of a proper recognizance.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2971-2979, 2985; Dec. Dig. § 1131. ]
3. Criminal Law (§ 1090 ) — Review—Bill oe Exceptions — Necessity.
An order overruling accused’s motion for continuance is not reviewable, in the absence of a bill of exceptions.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2812; Dec. Dig. § 1090. ]
4. Ckiminal Law (§ 762 ) — Instructions.
An instruction that if the person whom accused assaulted attached accused, and if it reasonably appeared to accused that he was in danger of losing his life, or of suffering serious bodily harm from the “supposed attack,” he should be acquitted, was erroneous, as indicating that the trial court regarded accused’s evidence that he was attacked as being untrue or doubtful.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Raw, Cent. Dig. §§ 1731-1769; Dec. Dig. § 762. )
5. Criminal Daw (§ 1171 ) — Harmless Error-Misconduct of District Attorney.
The district attorney’s statement in his •closing argument that if he did not believe accused was guilt}' he would not prosecute him, though improper, was not ground for reversal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Daw, Cent. Dig. §§ 3126-3127; Dec. Dig. § 1171. ]
6. Criminal Daw (§ 376 ) — Misconduct of Prosecuting Attorney.
In a trial for assault to murder, it was improper for the district attorney to ask accused’s witness as to accused’s character as a law-abiding citizen, where accused had not put his character in evidence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Daw, Cent. Dig. §§ 836-839; Dec. Dig. § 376. ]
7. Criminal Daw (§ 1111 ) — Bills of Exceptions — Qualificatio n .
Where a party accepts a bill of exceptions with the explanations of the judge indorsed thereon, the qualifications control the recitals of the bill.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Daw, Cent. Dig. §§ 2894-2896; Dec. Dig. § 1111. ]
8. Criminal Daw (§ 1092 ) — Bills of Exceptions — Contradiction.
If a bill of exceptions is incorrect, it should be refused, and not approved, subject to contradictory explanations of the judge indorsed thereon.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Daw, Dec. Dig. § 1092. ]
■S. Homicide (§ 214 ) — Evidence — Parts of Documents.
When accused offers in evidence only such ■parts of a statement which purports to be a dying declaration as relate to the offense for which he is tried, the state is not entitled to Introduce other parts of the statement referring to a different transaction occurring several years before, except that the former difficulty might be shown to establish malice, intent, or to throw any light on the particular •offense.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §| 448-460; Dec. Dig. § 214. ]
Appeal from District Court, Austin County; John T. Duncan, Special Judge.
John Hinton was convicted of aggravated assault, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Mathis & Teague and Johnson, Matthaei & Thompson, for appellant. C. E. Dane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Ana. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was indicted by the grand jury of Austin county, charged with assault to murder. When tried, he was convicted of an aggravated assault.
The Assistant Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal because of the insufficiency of the recognizance. The recognizance merely states defendant has been convicted of the "offense of aggravated assault," and the motion must be sustained. Killingsworth v. State, 7 Tex. App. 28.
The appeal is dismissed.