Case Name: WILLIAMS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-02-11
Citations: 219 S.W. 829
Docket Number: No. 5615
Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 219
Pages: 829–831

Head Matter:
WILLIAMS v. STATE.
(No. 5615.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 11, 1920.
On Motion for Rehearing, March 24, 1920.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;1091(ll) — Exceptions SHOULD NOT ORDINARILY SET OUT TESTIMONY BY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
A bill of exceptions complaining of the introduction of testimony should not ordinarily set out the objectionable testimony in the form of questions and answers, and such mode of preparing bill of exceptions should be resorted to only when the character of the testimony is such that it is deemed necessary to reproduce it in that form in order to correctly present it.
2. Criminal la'w <&wkey; 1169(2) — Hearsay STATEMENT THAT DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH CARRYING WEAPON HAD EXHIBITED PISTOL HELD HARMLESS.
In a prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol, where the state asserted that when defendant’s sister engaged in a fight with another negro woman he sat in a buggy and exhibited his weapon, the erroneous admission of a hearsay statement made by the other participant in the fight who after being vanquished sought to reach a white man’s house and suggested a detour into fields because defendant had a pistol, was harmless; there being abundant other testimony that defendant exhibited a pistol during the fight.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;1141(2) — Appellant has BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT RULING ON EVIDENCE WAS WRONG.
An appellant complaining of the admission of testimony has the burden of showing that the court’s ruling was wrong.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;368(3) — Statement by PARTICIPANT IN FIGHT THAT ACCUSED HAD A PISTOL HELD RES GESTiE.
Where defendant’s sister and another negro woman engaged in a fight, and, the sister being victorious, the other negress left the place of the fight and went to a store where her husband had sought to call up officers, and being unable to secure officers, the vanquished negress and her husband started to the house of a white man, and when they came near the point of the fight where defendant was still maintaining his ground, the vanquished negress told her husband that he had a pistol, and the two made a detour in the field, held that, as the statement was made less than an hour after the fight, evidence thereof was admissible as part of the res gestee, though the statement was made out of the hearing of defendant.
Appeal from Williamson County Court; F. D. Love, Judge. ,
A. W. Williams was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Dan Moody, of Taylor, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, J.
The appellant was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and fined $100.
Two negro women, Sallie Baldwin and Laura Sneed, engaged in a fight. The appellant was sitting in a buggy near by, and, according to the testimony of Sallie Baldwin, Joe Baldwin, and Louis Baldwin, the appellant exhibited a pistol during this fight. The Sneed woman, who got the best of the fight, was appellant's sister. She denied that appellant had a pistol, as did her son and the appellant. After the fight Jeff Baldwin went to a store near by to phone for what he termed "the law." While he was there his wife, Sallie Baldwin, came; and he testified that she was bleeding about her nose. He said:
"We stayed there 20 or 30 minutes trying to get the officers from Taylor; then started up the road towards Kuykendall's house, going there to tell about the trouble. We went up the road towards Mr. Kuykendall's house, and as 'soon as we left we saw the defendant Williams and Laura Sneed sitting in the buggy at the road. Sallie told me about the fight while we were at the store. After we had gone up the road about 200 yards from the store she said, 'You have not even got a poeketknife, and they have got a pistol up there.' We then got out of the road into the field."
The appellant did not hear the remark about the pistol, and insists that the reference to it under the circumstances was reversible error. The bill of exceptions is a reproduction in question and answer form of the notes of the stenographer, which we take occasion to say is a very unsatisfactory way of preparing a bill of exceptions, and should be resorted to only when the character of testimony is such that it is deemed necessary to reproduce it in this form in order to correctly present it. We gather from the bill, however, that while the fight was in progress the witness Jeff Baldwin went to the store, some 200 yards distant, to make a report of the fight to the officers at Taylor; that he was there some 20 or 30 minutes, and while there his wife arrived, the appellant and members of the Sneed family at the time remaining at the scene of the fight; that, failing to get into communication with the offi cers, Baldwin and his wife started in the direction of the home of a white man named Kuykendall to report the difficulty to him, and while on their way they observed that appellant and his relatives, the adversaries of the Baldwins in the fight, were at a point which would have to be passed by Baldwin and his wife in going to Mr. Kuykendall's residence; and that at this point Sallie Baldwin made the remark complained of, and, acting thereon, she and her husband abandoned the road and crossed the field.
It was developed that Sallie Baldwin at the store had related the incidents of the fight to her husband, but did not then mention the pistol. It is not claimed that appellant took any part in the fight further than to exhibit his pistol while it was in progress and intimate that he would use it to prevent injury to his sister, Laura Sneed.
The trial court regarded the statement as admissible as res gestee, and as presented we are not able to determine that it was not; but, assuming that the appellant is correct in his contention that it was not res gestee, we are unable to reach the conclusion that, when taken in connection with the remainder of the record, it' is of such importance as to require a reversal of the judgment. In its most hurtful aspect against the appellant it involves the statement of Sallie Baldwin to her husband, Jeff Baldwin, that they, appellant and others, were in possession of a pistol. At the time this statement was made the appellant was still upon the scene of the conflict between Sallie Baldwin and Laura Sneed, where, according to the state's testimony, he had exhibited the pistol. The beginning of the fight grew out of the fact that Sallie Baldwin had started to Kuykendall's residence to make a report of some controversy with the Sneed people; Laura Sneed giving her a whipping because of this intention. At the time the remark complained of was made the Baldwin woman, accompanied by her husband, was still trying to get to Kuykendall's residence, and the appellant, in company with Laura Sneed, occupied a place along the road which was between Kuykendall's place and the Baldwins.' Observing him there, they turned off the road; Sallie Baldwin stating at the time in effect that it would not be safe to go there because they had a pistol. She had stated in her testimony previously in positive terms that he had exhibited the pistol during the fight. Several other witnesses had given testimony to the same effect.
There are no other questions requiring consideration.
The judgment is affirmed.
ifcjoFor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes