Court Opinion

ID: 9762290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:19:04.211742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:32.915696
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Commissioner.
Appellant complains that in our opinion on original submission we were in error in overruling, without discussion, his points of error Nos. 5 and 6, which were that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was not taken immediately before a magistrate after his arrest, as required by Art. 217, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.
An examination of the record reflects that no written motion to dismiss the indictment on such ground was made by appellant, as required by Art. 513, V.A.C.C.P. We observe, however, that the failure to take appellant immediately before a magistrate would not vitiate the indictment. Campbell v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 431, 358 S.W.2d 376.
By point of error No. 8, which we did not discuss, appellant insists that the trial court’s action in ordering the jury re*333tired during his cross-examination of the witness Dean Morris to determine the admissibility of certain testimony constituted a denial of appellant’s right to he confronted by the witness against him, as guaranteed by Art. 1, Sec. 10, of the Constitution of this State, Vernon’s Ann.St.
Clearly, there is no merit in the contention, as the record shows that the testimony given by the witness was in the presence of appellant
By points of error Nos. 11, 12, and 13, appellant complains of certain testimony given hy the witnesses Carrie Woodward and Officer R. F. Canfield on the ground that it was hearsay.
 The record reflects that the testimony of the witness Woodward was not hearsay but a narration of certain events occurring at the time of the robbery, which was admissible as part of the res gestae. With reference to the testimony of the witness Canfield, the record shows that the officer was permitted to testify that he had received a radio report of the robbery and description of a certain automobile, but he did not relate the contents of the report.
The testimony was not subject to the objection of hearsay. Bevins v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 52, 7 S.W.2d 532; Lufkin v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 501, 164 S.W.2d 709.
Appellant’s remaining point of error, No. 14, is to the court’s action in sustaining the state’s objection to a certain question propounded by him to the witness Canfield.
The bill of exception does not show what the answer of the witness would have been and therefore presents nothing for review. Mays v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 123, 304 S.W.2d 118.
Remaining convinced that a proper disposition was made of the case on original submission, the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.