Case Name: STATEN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-10-04
Citations: 246 S.W. 387
Docket Number: No. 6646
Parties: STATEN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 246
Pages: 387–390

Head Matter:
STATEN v. STATE.
(No. 6646.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 4, 1922.
Appeal Reinstated and Judgment Affirmed Dec. 20, 1922.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1923.)
1. Bail <©=>64 — Recognizance in form of appearance recognizance held insufficient to confer jurisdiction on- appeal.
Under Code Cr. Proe. 1911, § 903, stating the requirements of a recognizance on appeal from conviction, a recognizance in the form of an appearance recognizance only is insufficient to confer jurisdiction.
2. Criminal law <©=>598(3) — Showing of diligence held insufficient to warrant continuance.
Showing of diligence in securing attendance of witnesses for taking depositions held insufficient to warrant continuance.
3. Criminal law <©=>930 — Misconduct of bystanders held insufficient to warrant new trial.
In a prosecution of a negro for assault with intent to murder, while the court was preparing its instructions a man entered the courtroom with a small rope, which he dropped into the lap of one in the rear of the room, , and went to speak with the sheriff about another matter. While he was so engaged the one with whom the rope had been left tied various knots in it, one of which was alleged to be a hangman’s noose, and some one told the defendant’s attorney that they were going to hang his negro. Held, the occurrence was insufficient to warrant a new trial in view of testimony that the jury did not all see the incident, and whatever was done was done jokingly and without demonstration.
4. Homicide <©=»310(2) — Instruction regarding assault with malice aforethought held warranted.
In a prosecution for assault with intent to murder, where evidence tended to show that accused pushed another off a train going 45 miles an hour, <7ieZ<Z an instruction, submitting the law of assault with malice aforethought, was not error.
5. Criminal law <©=>! 170'/2(3) — Unanswered question to which objection was sustained held not material error.
Where ¡the court sustained objections to a question propounded to defendant regarding a statement made before the grand jury, and the question was not answered, held that the mere asking constituted no material error.
6. Criminal law <©=>722 ½ — Prosecutor’s reference to accused as “confessed bootlegger” held not reversible error.
Where a waiter on a dining ear was caught dealing in liquor, and thereafter unsuccessfully sought to secure the steward’s promise not to report him, and later pushed the steward off the train, prosecutor’s reference to defendant as a confessed bootlegger 'held not to warrant a reversal, as being a statement of fact unsupported by any evidence.
On Motion for Rehearing.
7. Criminal law <©=>1091(4) — Bill of exceptions held not to sufficiently establish as basis for objection that accused was in jail and unwarned.
A statement in a bill of exceptions’ that an objection to a question asked accused regarding a statement not made before the grand jury was for the reason that accused was in jail and unwarned is not tantamount to a showing of such as a fact.
Appeal from District Court, Harrison County ; P. O. Beard, Judge.
John Staten was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Hall, Brown <& Hall, of Marshall, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction is for assault with intent to murder. Punishment, five years in the penitentiary. Motion for new trial was overruled on July 26, 1921, and. on the- same day appellant, seeking enlargement pending appeal, entered into recognizance as follows:
"The State of Texas v. John Staten.
No. 14704.
"District Court, Harrison County, July Term,
A. D. 1921.
"On this 26th day of July, A. D. 1921, came into open court the defendant, John Staten, accompanied by R. A. Hall, Joe S. Brown, and S. B. Hall, who were tendered and accepted as sureties; and thereupon the said John Staten, as principal, and the said R. A. Hall, Joe S. Brown, and S. B. Hall, as sureties, acknowledged themselves to be indebted to the state of Texas, the said principal in the sum of $750, and the said sureties in the sum of $750 each, to be levied of their respective goods and chattels, lands, and tenements, but to be void, nevertheless, in case the said principal shall well and truly make his personal appearance before the honorable district court of Harrison county, Tex., at the courthouse of said county in Marshall, on the instanta 1921, and there remain from day to day and from term to term of said court to answer the state of Texas upon a charge by indictment duly presented and pending in said court, wherein the said John Staten is accused of the offense of assault to murder."
It may be seen at a glance that the foregoing instrument is an appearance recognizance only, ancl in no particular complies with article 908, C. C. P., providing for recognizance pending appeal. No jurisdiction is conferred upon this court by such an obligation. Westbrook v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 466, 227 S. W. 1104; Sanders v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 110, 201 S. W. 411; Lopez v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 402, 212 S. W. 954; Sauer v. State. 90 Tex. Cr. R. 596, 286 S. W. 721. For other authorities see collation under article 903, Vernon's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. Supp. 1922.
The appeal must be dismissed.
<g=»For other cases see same topic and KEY -NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes