Case Name: R. R. Robinson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-11-08
Citations: 92 Tex. Crim. 527
Docket Number: No. 7057
Parties: R. R. Robinson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 527–531

Head Matter:
R. R. Robinson v. The State.
No. 7057.
Decided November 8, 1922.
1. —Selling Intoxicating Liquor — Grand Jurors — Practice in Trial Court.
We do not think the law regarding the formation of a grand jury should have such rigid and inflexible construction as that the trial court may not excuse from service on such grand jury citizens whose reasons, as presented to the court, appeal to his sound discretion, and were such as to justify the court in excusing them from service on said jury. Following Garrett v. State, 146 S. W. Rep., 930.
2. —Same—Evidence—Confession—Bill of Exceptions.
Where there was nothing in the bill of exceptions in any way substantiating defendant’s objections to the introduction of evidence of his confession, and was merely the statement of counsel, stating his grounds of objection, the same cannot be reviewed here.
3. —Same—Evidence—Character of Witness.
There was no error in the refusal of the trial court to permit the defendant to prove that a State witness on one occasion registered at a hotel as the wife of a man who was not her husband. Following McIntosh v. State, 239 S. W. Rep., 622.
4. —Same—Argument of Counsel.
Where the alleged argument of counsel was not objectionable, there was no reversible error.
5. —Same—Suspended Sentence.
Where defendant was charged with a violation of the amended Dean Law, and the facts showed him to be a man of fifty years of age, he was denied the benefit of suspended sentence, and there was no error in the court’s refusal to submit this issue.
6. —Same—Rehearing—Constitutional Law.
Where the appellant, in his motion for rehearing, attacked the provisions of the Dean Law, Section 2, providing that no person over twenty-five years of age, convicted under said Act, shall have the benefit of suspended sentence, as being discriminatory and in violation of Section 3, of the Bill of Rights; held, that this identical question has been decided against appellant. Following Davis v. State, recently decided.
7. —Same—Indictment—Grand Jury — Jury Commissioners — Array Challenge.
It was the evident purpose of the Legislature, in enacting Article 409, C. C. P., to place certain limitations of time on attacks upon the organization of the grand jury, and where the bill of exceptions does not show that appellant sought to challenge the array, or that he was deprived of the opportunity to present such challenge, his attack upon the grand jury for the purpose .of invalidating the indictment comes too late when presented for the first time upon motion to quash, there being no showing that appellant was deprived of the right to make the attack by challenge in limine. Following Russell v. State, 242 S. W. Rep., 240, and other cases.
Appeal from the District Court of Eastland. Tried below before the Honorable E. A. Hill.
Appeal from a conviction of-selling intoxicating liquors; penalty, one year in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Chastain, Judkins & Chastain, for appellant.
— On question of confessions : Thomas v. State, 32 S. W. Reu. p., 771; Gallagher v. State, 24 S. W. Rep., 288; Jackson v. State, 97 S. W. Rep., 312.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
— On question of organization of grand jury: Garrett v. State, 146 S. W. Rep., 930.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
— Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Eastland County of the offense of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
We are unable to agree with appellant's contention as set forth in his bill of exceptions No. 1 that the trial court committed error in excusing from the list of grand jurors certain men drawn thereon, and in instructing the sheriff to summon other men to take the places of those so excused. We do not think the law regarding the formation of a grand jury should have such rigid and inflexible construction as that the trial court may not excuse from service on such grand jury, citizens whose reasons as presented to the court, appeal to his sound discretion and were such as to seem to justify such action. Garrett v. State, 66 Texas Crim. Rep., 480, 146 S. W. Rep., 930.
Appellant complains by his bill of exceptions No. 2 of the introduction in evidence of his confession. We find nothing in said bill of exceptions in any way substantiating appellant's, objections as stated to the reception of such confession. The officer who took same testified that he gave the defendant a warning, apparently in the terms of the statute, and that after said warning was given the accused proceeded to malee the statement introduced in evidence. A statement in the bill of exceptions that said confession was extorted by threats of personal violence, would not appear to be sustained, in the absence of some showing in said bill of said fact further than the statement thereof by appellant's counsel in stating the ground of his objection.
We do not believe any error appears in bill of exceptions No. 3 which complains of the refusal of the trial court to permit appellant to prove that a State witness on one occasion registered at a hotel as the wife of a man with whom she stayed that night who was not her husband. There is no effort made to show the general reputation of said witness, or to attack her in any way except by an attempt to prove the isolated matter just mentioned. McIntosh v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 392, 239 S. W. Rep., 622.
Appellant has two bills of exception complaining of the argument of the State's attorney. We have carefully examined each of said bills and find nothing in same which in our opinion would call for a reversal of this case.
There was no error on the part of the trial court in declining to submit to the jury the issue of suspended sentence. The charge against appellant was a violation of the amended Dean Law and the uneontroverted proof in the case showed lie was a man fifty years of age. The benefit of suspended sentence in such ease is denied by statute.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.