Case Name: Horace Smith v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-10
Citations: 96 Tex. Crim. 28
Docket Number: No. 7582
Parties: Horace Smith v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 28–31

Head Matter:
Horace Smith v. The State.
No. 7582.
Decided October 10, 1923.
Rehearing denied November 21, 1923.
1. —Selling Intoxicating Liquor — Evidence—Cross-Examination.
Where the previous matter regarding the injury of the wife of the State’s witness was not inquired into by the State, and in response to cross-examination by defendant’s counsel the' witness admitted there was some suspicion directed at him about the injury to his wife, and he was then asked by defendant’s counsel if it was not after this suspicion that he told the officers that the Smiths (including defendant) had sold him whisky and made him drunk, to which he answered that he told them all he knew, but denied saying that the Smiths had beat up his wife, there was no error in permitting the State on redirect examination to ask the witness if the suspicion was not also directed toward a brother of defendant as being the party who had committed the assault.
2. —Same—Evidence—Cross-examination—Redirect Examination.
If the purpose of the examination by appellant’s counsel was to leave the impression that the State’s witness was undertaking to make some charge against appellant or his brother in order to divert suspicion from himself as being guilty of the injury to his wife, then the State had a right to inquire into it upon redirect examination.
3. —Same—Evidence—Conduct of District Attorney.
Where the last question by the district attorney was not answered, but exception thereto taken, and the trial judge immediately instructed the jury that they must not pay any attention to the remarks of counsel on either side, but to consider the evidence as given by the witnesses and disregard the remarks of the district attorney, there was no reversible error.
4. —Same—Rehearing—Redirect Examination.
Where the question asked by the district attorney was not answered by the witness, and the witness having testified that he had bought liquor from defendant, he might have explained any blow that he had struck his wife that he did so under the influence of liquor at the time, and there was no reversible error.
5. —Same—Bill of Exception — Practice on Appeal.
Where in the bill of exceptions absolutely nothing showing the surroundings, setting or conditions, antecedent to or subsequent to the question by defendant, the same cannot be considered on appeal.
6. —Same—Bill of Exceptions — Practice on Appeal.
Where nothing was stated in the bill of exceptions except that the court instructed the jury to pay no attention to the remarks of the district attorney, that he understood the witness came, to swear that there wasn’t anything there, etc., and nothing showed the antecedents, surroundings or purpose of this question, there was no reversible error.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Williamson. Tried below before the Honorable James R. Hamilton.
Appeal from a conviction of selling intoxicating liquors; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
J. F. Taulbee for appellant.
B. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
— Appellant Appellant is under conviction for selling intoxicating liquor, with punishment of two years in the penitentiary.
It is unnecessary to detail the evidence. If the testimony offered by the State is accepted as true, and it evidently was so considered by the jury, it is sufficient to support the verdict.
The sale of the liquor is alleged to have been made to E. C. Harrison. A few nights after the alleged sale Mrs. Harrison sustained injuries inflicted upon her by some one and during the investigation of such assault the officers were informed by Harrison of the sale to. him of the liquor by appellant. This matter was not inquired into by the State on its examination in chief of Harrison, but was" developed on cross-examination. In response to examination by appellant's counsel Harrison admitted there was some suspicion directed at him (Harrison) about the injury to his wife. He was asked then if it was not after this suspicion was directed towards himself that he told the officers the Smiths had sold him whisky and made him drunk, to which he replied that he told all he knew at that time but denied saying the Smiths had beat his wife up. Unless we misapprehend the record it was sought by this cross-examination to make the impression upon the jury that in order to divert attention from the suspicion towards him Harrison had claimed that the Smiths were guilty of the assault upon his wife and had also sold him the whisky in question. Upon re-direct examination counsel for the State was permitted over appellant's objection to "ask Harrison if suspicion was not also directed toward Howard Smith, a brother of appellant, as being the party who had committed the assault. So far as we have been able to gather from the record Harrison never at any time charged any of the Smiths with having sold him whisky except appellant, and never charged that appellant or Howard Smith had anything to do with the assault upon Mrs. Harrison. Mrs. Harrison in her testimony expressly disclaims that she had any idea that appellant committed the assault upon her. In this state of the record we have been unable to determine that any injury resulted to appellant from this inquiry on the part of the State or that the court was in error in admitting it. If the purpose of the examination by appellant's counsel was to leave the impression that Harrison was undertaking to make some charge against appellant or his brother in order to divert suspicion from himself as being guilty of the injury to his wife then the State had a right to inquire into it upon re-direct examination. Further complaint is made that Harrison was asked by appellant's counsel if he had hit his wife in the head would he admit it, to which the witness replied that he would not mind telling it. The district attorney then asked the witness: "If you had done it (hit his wife) you would have done it while under the influence of Horace Smith's whisky, wouldn't you?"
The last question by the district attorney was not answered but exception was reserved to the question. The trial judge immediately instructed the jury that they must not pay any attention to the remarks of counsel on either side but it was their duty to consider the evidence as given by the witnesses and that they should not consider the remarks of the district attorney as affecting the guilt or innocence of appellant. In view of the prompt action taken by the court in the matter we do not regard it as of sufficient consequences to require a reversal of the case.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.