Case Name: Howard Gray v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-10-13
Citations: 88 Tex. Crim. 1
Docket Number: No. 5843
Parties: Howard Gray v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 1–7

Head Matter:
Howard Gray v. The State.
No. 5843.
Decided October 13, 1920.
1.—Murder—Appeal Bond—Adjournment of Court—Approval
Under the Statute, Article 904 C. C. P., it is necessary where an appeal bond is given not only for it to be approved by the sheriff, but also by the trial judge, or his successor in office; and where this was not done, the appeal must be dismissed. However, a proper appeal bond having been filed, the case will be re-instated.
2. —Same—Evidence—Cross-examination—Husband and Wife.
Where, upon trial of murder, defendant placed his wife upon the witness stand and brought out testimony as to her communication to him as to the insulting conduct by the deceased and she was thereupon cross-examined by the State with reference to this matter and asked as to when the conversation occurred, to show that the same occurred early in the evening instead of late in the evening, etc., the same was legitimate cross-examination and there was no error.
3. —Same—Misconduct of the Jury—Bills of Exceptions.
Where the bills of exception were filed after the adjournment of court, setting out testimony with reference to matters occurring after the jury’s retirement, the same could not he considered on appeal.
4. —Same-—Argument of Counsel—Inferences Drawn from the Evidence.
Where the argument of the counsel for the State was a legitimate inference drawn from the evidence, there was no reversible error; besides, the court instructed the jury to disregard this argument.
5. —Same—Argument of Counsel—Harmless Error.
Where, upon trial of murder, the argument of State’s counsel that the old hip-pocket play was threadbare, etc., the same was objectionable and should not have been made, but in as much as the jury gave to the-defendant the minimum punishment, there was no reversible. error, under the facts in the instant case.
6. —Same—Rehearing—Motion for New Trial—Continuance—Rule Stated.
Where, appellant in his motion for rehearing contended that the rule with reference to testimony taken on motion for new trial should be filed during term time applies only to questions of misconduct of the jury, held that it has been uniformly decided that the provisions of our statutes, both civil and criminal, with regard to the preparation and filing of a statement of facts for appeal have reference only and exclusively to a state of facts adduced upon the merits of the case, before the jury or the court, and have no reference to issues of fact formed on grounds set up in motion for new trial, which must be filed during term time. Following Probest v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 608, and other cases.
Appeal from the District Court of Robertson. Tried below before the Honorable W. C. Davis.
■ Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Ben L. Parten and Morehead & Bush, for appellant.
On question of cross-examination of wife: Marsh v. State, 112 S. W. Rep., 320; Hobbs v. State, 112 id., 308; Taylor v. State, 167 S. W. Rep., 56; Roberts v. State, 168 id., 113; Johnson v. State, 148 id., 328.
On question of argument of counsel: Johnson v. State, 138 S. W. Rep., 1021; Johnson v. State, 148 id., 328; Liner v. State, 156 id., 211; Harris v. State, 161 id., 126; Marshall v. State, 175 id., 154.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
On question of argument of counsel: Himmelfarb v. State, 174 S. W. Rep., 589; Leach v. State, 139 id., 1153; Maxwell v. State, 153 id., 324.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant appeals from a conviction for murder in which he was allotted five years in the penitentiary.
The Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss the appeal because the appeal bond is not in compliance with the statute. Appellant did not enter into a recognizance during the term but gave an appeal bond after the adjournment of court. This bond was approved by the sheriff but not by the judge who tried the case as required by the statute. See C. C. P., Art. 904. Under that statute it is necessary where an appeal bond is given not only for it to be approved by the sheriff but it must also be approved by the judge who tried the case, or his successor in office. This bond was not ap proved by the judge, and, therefore, it is not in compliance with the law.
The motion of the Assistant Attorney General is well taken and must be sustained. The appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.