Case Name: TURMAN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-04-29
Citations: 274 S.W. 593
Docket Number: No. 8383
Parties: TURMAN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 274
Pages: 593–595

Head Matter:
TURMAN v. STATE.
(No. 8383.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 29, 1925.
Rehearing Granted June 24, 1925.)
1. Criminal law &wkey;423(3) — Evidence that another oechpant of oar was intoxicated competent in prosecution for transporting.
In prosecution for transporting liquor, where it was undisputed that defendant and another drove into the country and on their return were stopped and searched for liquor, and where state’s theory was that whisky was being transported at time, testimony that defendant’s companion was intoxicated was competent; any act of either while acting together, that would tend to show transportation, being admissible.
2. Intoxicating liquors t&wkey;226 — Whether another occupant of car was intoxicated held for jury, in prosecution for transporting liquor.
In prosecution for transporting liquor, evidence that another occupant of defendant’s car was intoxicated is not rendered incompetent by fact that much testimony for defendant showed that neither of. them had been drinking; that issue being for jury rather than court.
3. Criminal law &wkey;U092(6) — Bill of exception not considered when not tiled within term.
Bill of exception, not filed within the term of court, cannot be considered.
4. Criminal law &wkey;j|092(6) — Failure to file exception within term not excused for insufficiency of time, where no extension requested.
Failure to fill certain bill of exception within term is not excused by complaint of insufficient time for its preparation, though motion for new trial was acted upon on day of adjournment, where record shows no request to continue term nor that motion could not have been acted upon previously.
On Motion for Rehearing.
5. Criminal law &wkey;>9l7(2) — New trial should-have been granted for absence of witness, where diligence shown and issue closely controverted.
Where defendant’s application for postponement of trial for transporting liquor averred that he had not learned name or residence of witness, whose testimony would be definite that defendant’s car contained no whisky, until his first conference with attorneys, which occurred day of trial, and .that trial occurred 4 days after indictment, new trial should have been granted, in view of fact that, considering the very closely controverted issue as to transportation, testimony in question might have changed result; motion being in conformity to Code Or. Proc. 1911, arts. 608 and 612.
Commissioners’ Decision.
Appeal from District Coiirt, Kimble County; J. H. McLean, Judge.
Jim Turman was convicted of unlawfully transporting liquors, and he appeals.
Reversed and remande,d on rehearing.
Coke R. Stevenson and M. E. Blackburn, both of Junction City, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and .Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
BAKER J.
Appellant was charged, by indictment in the district court of Kimble county, with unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquors, and convicted in said court of said offense on the 7th day of September, 1923, and his punishment assessed at one year's confinement in the penitentiary, from which conviction he has appealed to this court upon errors assigned and' set out in his hills of exception from 1 to 4, inclusive.
Bill No. 1 complains of the action of the court in not postponing the case for want of the testimony of the witness Riddle, who was alleged to have resided in said county, which application was overruled by the court apparently for the want of proper diligence, and we are unable to say that such ruling was erroneous.
Appellant complains of the action of the court in permitting the state's witness Randle to testify that; at the time of the arrest of appellant, Will Taylor was drunk, upon the ground that same was immaterial and calculated to inflame the minds of the jury and prejudice them against him. The undisputed testimony shows that the defendant and said Taylor left Junction City together, and had gone some 7 or 8 miles in the country and returned together, and had reached the bridge near the town of Junction, where the defendant was arrested and his car searched for whisky, and, if the testimony of the state's witnesses is to be believed, whisky was found therein and was being transported in said car at said time. This being the state's contention? any act of either of the parties, while together and acting together, or their appearance, that would tend to prove that whisky was then being transported, would be a circumstance admissible in favor of the state, and we are unable to agree with the contention of the appellant in this particular. We are not unmindful of the fact- that a great deal of testimony upon the part of the defendant was introduced to show that neither Taylor nor himself was under the influence of whis-ky or even had whisky at the time; but, upon the other hand, that was a controverted. issue in the case, sharply contested on both sides, and an issue left entirely to the jury to pass upon, and not the court.
In bill of exception No. 3 appellant complains of the action- of the court in not instructing the jury to* return a verdict of not guilty, and what we have said with reference to the issues above mentioned will dispose of this contention.
The fourth bill of exception raises the complaint agains't the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for new trial on account of the alleged discovery of material testimony since the trial of the case, in which there is set out at length quite a volume of testimony that would, if introduced upon the trial, tend to prove the contention of the appellant: But, under the decisions of this court, which are now the well-settled law of this state, on account of said bill of exception not having been filed within the term of said court, we are unable and not authorized by the statute or the decisions to consider same. Vineyard v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 401, 257 S. W. 548, and authorities there cited.
Appellant in his brief complains of not having sufficient time to prepare and file this bill of exception before court adjourned; the motion for new trial being acted upon on the day of 'adjournment. The record fails to show any request to the court to continue the term for this purpose or the court's refusal to do so, nor does the record show that the motion could not have been acted upon prior to said date.
The record discloses a hotly contested trial of this case in the lower court, in which there was much evidence introduced both by the state and especially by the defendant on the issue as to whether or not the defendant at the time alleged was transporting intoxicating 'liquors. In fact, that -is practically the only issue presented in the case. The jury would have been warranted in 'finding a Verdict in behalf of the defendant or in behalf of the state, depending upon which witnesses they believed to be telling the truth in the matter. .That issue being left entirely to the jury, when passed upon by them this court would not be authorized under such circumstances to interfere with same.
After a careful investigation of the entire record, we find no reversible error of the trial court, and therefore the judgment of the lower court is accordingly affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
cg^For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes