Case Name: John Campbell v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-04-13
Citations: 62 Tex. Crim. 561
Docket Number: No. 488
Parties: John Campbell v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 561–568

Head Matter:
John Campbell v. The State.
No. 488.
Decided April 13, 1911.
Rehearing Granted June 14, 1911.
1. —Assault to Rape—Recognizance—Dismissal—Reinstatement,
Where the appeal was dismissed because the recognizance was defective in not stating the amount of punishment assessed against the appellant, but he later filed a new recognizance within proper time, the case will be heard on its merits.
2. —Same—Bill of Exceptions—Practice on Appeal.
Where bills of exception were not in the record the error assigned in them can not be considered.
3. —Same—Evidence—Leading Question—Child Witness.
When a person is of immature years and laboring under excitement, etc., leading questions may be permitted by the court; and where the prosecutrix in trial for attempt to rape was only thirteen years old, was crying and under excitement, there was no error in permitting leading questions to be asked.
4. —Same—Hearsay Evidence.
Upon trial of assault to rape there was no error in not permitting certain witnesses to testify as to what a third party, who was not a witness, had said to them on different occasions when neither the defendant nor prosecuting witness were present.
5. —Same—Letters—Evidence.
Before a witness who has read a letter will be permitted to testify as to its contents, some reason must be given for its nonproduction; and where no such reason was given in trial of assault to rape there was no error in not permitting witnesses to state the contents of a certain letter to defendant.
G.—Same—Evidence—Credibility of Witness.
Where, upon trial of rápe, the defendant had sought to impeach the prosecutrix by her mother as to a conversation between them with reference to the alleged rape, there was no error in permitting the said mother to testify to this conversation in substance as the prosecutrix had detailed it.
7. —Same—Argument of Counsel—Practice.
It is proper for the court to confine the argument of counsel to the evidence adduced on trial and to instruct the jury accordingly.
8. —Same—Argument of Counsel—Response.
Where the defendant’s counsel had first referred to extrinsic matters not in evidence, he could not complain of State’s counsel’s remark in direct response to such references; especially where no special charge was requested, and there was no error. Following Levine v. State, 35 Texas Grim. Rep., 649, and other cases.
9. —Same—Evidence—Defendant as a Witness—Cross-Examination—Credibility of Witness.
While a defendant' as a witness is subject to the same cross-examination as any other witness, he can not be cross-examined on a matter about which he has not been indicted, and the question does not indicate’ a state of affairs for which he could be indicted, for the purpose of affecting his credibility; and the State must accept his answers to such questions and will not be permitted to impeach him. Following Brittain v. State, 36 Texas Grim. Rep., 410, and other cases.
10.—Same—Evidence—Case Stated.
Where the testimony brought out on cross-examination of defendant as a witness could only show that he was not a moral man, perhaps, a libertine, and thus create a prejudice in the minds of the jury against him on a trial of assault to rape, the same was inadmissible, and could not affect his credibility as a witness.
Appeal from the District Court of Hunt. Tried below before the Hon. R. L. Porter.
Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty, a fine of $250 and six months confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
Sam D. Stinson, for appellant.
G. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
On insufficiency of recognizance: May v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 196.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
The assistant attorney-general has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the recognizance is defective. The recognizance does not state the amount of the punishment assessed against appellant as required by article 887, Code of Criminal Procedure. The recognizance being defective, the motion is sustained. See May v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 196.
The appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.