Case Name: BENNETT v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-01-03
Citations: 254 S.W. 949
Docket Number: No. 7493
Parties: BENNETT v. STATE.
Judges: MORROW, P. J., absent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 254
Pages: 949–953

Head Matter:
BENNETT v. STATE.
(No. 7493.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 3, 1923.
On the Merits May 23, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 17, 1923.)
On Application for Certiorari.
1. Criminal law &wkey;>l I I0i(8)— Certiorari granted to correct errors in transcript.
Certiorari granted to correct errors in the transcript due to clerk’s fault, appellant asserting it to be impossible to brief his case in the present condition of the record.
On the Merits.
2. Jury &wkey;>70(8)— May be selected for special term by sheriff when there was not time for appointing jury commissioners.
When, because of lack of time merely, jury commissioners for a special term of the district court, called under Code Cr. Proe. 1911, art. 94, have not been appointed, the jury for such term may be selected by the sheriff.
3. Criminal law &wkey;>982 — Defendant, over 25 years old, convicted of violating Dean Law, not accorded suspended sentence.
In prosecution for violation of the Dean Law, a defendant over 25 years old cannot be accorded the suspended sentence.
4.'Criminal law &wkey;l09f (5) — Bill of exceptions held not to overcome presumption of correctness of exclusion of evidence.
A bill of exceptions to exclusion of a statement, not showing its contents, nor indicating the relevancy or materiality of the matters inquired about, does not overcome the presumption of correctness of the ruling.
5. Criminal law <&wkey;>I09I (4) — Bill of exceptions should support by recital of facts objection that admitted confession was not voluntary.
The objection to the admission of the defendant’s written confession that it was not voluntary should he supported by recital offsets in the bill of exceptions.
6. Criminal law <&wkey;530 — Defendant affected by preliminary státement in his signed-confession.
The preliminary statement in 'defendant’s confession, that it was a “voluntary statement of * * *■ (defendant) made to me, * * * county attorney,” being a part of the document, signed by defendants, his contention that it does not affect him, but is a mere ex parte statement of the county attorney,-is unsound.
7. Criminal (aw &wkey;507(f) — Buyer of intoxicating liquor-not accomplice of seller.
By provision of Acts 37th Leg. (1921) 1st Called Sess. c. 61, § 2c (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588%a3), the buyer of intoxicating liquor is not an accomplice of the seller.
8. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;239(2) — No reason under evidence for instructing on delivery.
Under evidence on prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor, there being no affirmative testimony that delivery was not made, held, there was no reason for an affirmative charge singling out and instructing on the question of delivery.
9. Criminal law <&wkey;78l (3) — Charge that confession alone will not support conviction unnecessary in view of independent proof.
Where the facts showing commission of the offense and defendant’s connection therewith were proved independently of his confession, it was not necessary to give his requested charge that his confession alone would not support a conviction.
10. Criminal law <&wkey;>535(2) — Corpus delicti need not be established by evidence independent of confession.
Independent evidence need not establish the corpus delicti; but it is enough that such evidence with the confession does so.
11. Crimina! law <&wkey;l092(l I) — Objection to argument not verified' by court as fact insufficient to disclose error.
Objection to comment on testimony by the county attorney in argument that it referred to a matter excluded, and did not properly quote the testimony, not being verified by the court as a fact, is insufficient to disclose error.
12. Criminal law <&wkey;723(3) — Argument as to •responsibility of jury if law breakers were turned loose unobjectionable.
There is no vice in argument of county attorney to the effect that he could put issues of fact before the jury, but the responsibility would be on them if law breakers were turned loose.
13. Criminal law <@=>103-7(2) — Argument held not to require'reversal in absence of request for charge to disregard!.
For county attorney in argument, after saying Tie thought there were bad conditions brought on by jurors violating their oaths and failing to convict lawbreakers, to conclude that, if-the jury wanted to continue in this course, they need not be alarmed at the cluck of the Klansmen, if improper, does not require reversal, at least in absence of request for special charge to disregard.
14. Criminal law <@=>1091 (8) — Bill of exceptions should shoiv remarks in argument were not based on evidence.
Bill -of exceptions complaining of the county attorney seeking'to explain in argument why another case against' defendant for selling intoxicating liquor was dismissed should show the remarks were not based on evidence adduced on the trial.
On Motion for Rehearing.
15. Jury &wkey;>79(8) — In absence of arbitrary disregard of provisions for selection of jury for special term by commissioners, no error in'selection by sheriff.
Though it is better practice that jury, for special term of district court called under Code Or. Proc. 1911, art. 94, be drawn by jury commissioners, yet, there having been no arbitrary disregard of provision for commissioners, there was no error in having jury selected by the sheriff.
Appeal from District Court, Montague County; C. R. Fearman, Judge. '
Jack Bennett was convicted of violating the liquor laws, and he appeals.
Certiorari to correct transcript granted, and judgment affirmed.
Chancellor & Bryan, of Bowie, 'for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
On Application for Certiorari.
HAWKINS, J.
Appeal is from a conviction for selling intoxicating liquor, with ' a penalty of two years in the penitentiary.
Appellant has filed application for certiorari to correct the transcript, pointing out many alleged mistakes and errors therein, and asserting that it is impossible for him to brief his case in the present condition of the record. The errors appear to be attributable to the carelessness of the clerk in preparing the transcript for this court. We must enjoin upon such officers more care in the preparation of records to the end that useless delays may be avoided.
The certiorari is granted as prayed for.
MORROW, P. J., absent.
<gs»For other cases see same topic and KEY-N UMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
<&wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KEi-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes