Case Name: THOMAS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-05-06
Citations: 274 S.W. 577
Docket Number: No. 8736
Parties: THOMAS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 274
Pages: 577–579

Head Matter:
THOMAS v. STATE.
(No. 8736.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 6, 1925.
On Motion for Rehearing June 17, 1925.)
1. Criminal law 1086 (14) — Refusal to give special charges not error, where not presented to judge before charge read to jury. •
In a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquors, refusal of. judge to give special charges cannot be considered on appeal, without doing violence to Vernon’s Ann. Code Or. Proe. 1916, arts. 737a, 743, where bill of exceptions fails to show that they were presented to the judge before charge was read to jury, as required by article 735.
2. Criminal law <®=>35l(3) — Evidence of sheriff, showing circumstantially that accused fled during inquiry, admissible.
■ In prosecution for selling intoxicating liquors, evidence of sheriff, showing circumstantially that the appellant had fled during the court of inquiry and was afterwards arrested in another place, was properly received.
3. Witnesses <§»255(9), 257 — Former statement of witness could be used to refresh his 'memory, but not as original testimony against accused.
In prosecution for sale of intoxicating liquors, where witness was unwilling or unable to identify accused, his memory may be refreshed by calling his attention to a former statement made by him; but it was error to introduce such former statement as original evidence, to be used by jury to prove guilt of accused.
4. Criminal law <§=u>957(5)»_Hearing evidence of jurors, on motion for new trial, as to effect they gave statement of witness before grand jury, improper method of impeaching verdict.
Where accused, convicted of sale of liquor, made a motion for a new trial, it was an improper method of impeaching verdict to hear evidence of jurors, on such motion, as to their consideration of statement of witness made before grand jury.
Commissioners’ Decision.
Appeal from District Court, Montague County; Paul Donald, Judge.
O. E. (Shorty) Thomas was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded on motion for rehearing.
J.- S. Jameson, of Montague, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
BAKER, J.
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 exceptions. Neither the special charges nor the bills of exceptions relating thereto show that they were presented to the court before the general charge was read to the jury, as required by Vernon's O. O. P. art. 735, and for that reason we are unauthorized 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 exceptions shows the court heard 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 Bearing the evidence, overruled the motion for a new trial, and we see no error therein. Esquivel v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 125, 246 S. W. 399; Branch, Ann. Statutes, § 575.
The other bills of exceptions in tbe 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 Noeona 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 t;o 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. § 207, 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 he affirmed; and it is accordingly so ordered.
PER CURIAM.
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.
<S=oEor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes