Case Name: Earl Pendergrass v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-24
Citations: 97 Tex. Crim. 417
Docket Number: No. 7433
Parties: Earl Pendergrass v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 97
Pages: 417–420

Head Matter:
Earl Pendergrass v. The State.
No. 7433.
Decided October 24, 1923.
Rehearing denied May 7, 1924.
1. —Possession of Intoxicating Liquor — Argument of Counsel — Moral Turpitude.
A misdemeanor theft is an offense involving moral turpitude and an inquiry as to the appellant’s connection therewith was proper, and testimony of the pendency of the theft charge was admissible as affecting the credibility of appellant as a witness, and the argument of the district attorney thereon was in no wise improper.
2. —Same—Charge of Court — Bill of Exceptions.
Where the bill of exceptions did not disclose what the theory of the appellant is, and the court derives therefrom no information which would enable it to appraise the weight of said objection to the charge of the court, there is no reversible error.
3. —Same—Rehearing—Objections to Argument — Rule Stated.
Trial courts rule upon objections as made, and one who makes an objection to an extended argument as a whole, part of which is proper, has no right to complain that the court declined to sustain the objection made, just as one who objects to testimony as a whole, part of which is admissible, is in no position to have said objection considered, and there is no reversible error.
Appeal from the District Court of Jones. Tried below before, the Honorable W. R. Chapman.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Lon A. Brooks, for appellant.
On question of argument of counsel: McKinley v. State, 106 S. W. Rep., 342; Walker v. State, 206 id., 96; McIntosh, v. State, 213 id., 659: Glanges v. State, 220 id., 95 Brookerson v. State, 225 id., 375; Stiles v. State, 239 id., 963.
Tom Garrard, Attorney for the State and Grover C. Morris, Assistant Attorney for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Jones County of the offense of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary..
From the State.'s testimony we learn that appellant had agreed to sell liquor to one Davis and that he met him at a certain point and had in his possession two quarts of whisky. Davis testified that appellant had told him the price of the liquor was ten dollars a gallon. Davis produced a five dollar bill and according to the testimony of the chief of police of Stamford, who witnessed the transaction, he handed the five dollar bill to appellant. At this point said chief of police took part in the transaction and took charge of appellant and his whisky.
There is but one bill of exceptions in the record which reflects appellant's complaint of certain argument of the district attorney. In substance the argument was a statement of the fact that appellant had testified that he had never been charged with any offense, but when the district attorney took him on cross-examination he admitted that there was pending against him an indictment for theft in the county court; and that if appellant would lie about the fact of his having been charged with any offense, he might be giving false testimony about every other fact testified to by him. A misdemeanor theft is an offense involving moral turpitude and the inquiry of appellant was proper and testimony of the pendency of the theft charge was admissible as affecting the credibility of appellant as a witness. The argument of the district attorney seems in nowise improper.
The only exception to the court's charge is that it does not affirmatively present the theory of the defense, but there is nothing in said exception showing what the theory of the appellant is and the'court derives therefrom no information which would enable us to appraise the weight of said objection.
Finding no error in the record, an affirmance will be ordered.
Affirmed.