Court Opinion

ID: 9831505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:08:57.297408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:35.386650
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING.
May 14, 1913.
At a former day of this term this 'case was affirmed,—the bills of exception not bearing the signature of the trial judge were not considered. Since that time the clerk certifies that the bills on file were in fact approved by the j udge, and it was an error on his part in copying them in the transcript.
The first bill complains of the action of the court in overruling his application for a continuance. The record discloses that appellant was arrested on May 19th, and no process was issued for any witness until October 26th, the case being set for trial October 31st. Such lack of diligence is inexcusable, and the court did not err in overruling the application.
According to the State’s evidence, Lawrence Converse and another were in El Paso County about four or five miles southeast of Tornillo, and in about 640 feet of the Bio Grande river, when appellant and three other men arrested them and carried them across the river and delivered them to a company of Mexican soldiers. Mr. Converse testified: “They took us to the bank of the river on the Mexican side where there were some Mexican soldiers and delivered us to the soldiers, who tied our hands behind our backs and placed a rope around our necks. The defendant was present at the time. The rope was then tied to the pommel of a saddle, which was on a horse ridden by a Mexican Federal soldier in uniform.” Appellant 'being the person who arrested Mr. Converse and carried him across the river, the fact that he delivered him to soldiers who placed him in jail became admissible, and the court did not err in so holding. The facts in this case show a well developed conspiracy to kidnap these two men. The soldiers came to the river bank, and appellant and two or three others in citizens clothes approached Converse and his friend, forcibly took charge of them, and carried them to the soldiers, and under such circumstances the acts, *485words and conduct of each and all the conspirators in furtherance of the common design become admissible until the termination of the conspiracy, whether the person on trial was actually present at all times or not. Baker v. State, 7 Texas Crim. App., 612; Avery v. State, 10 Texas Crim. App., 199; Hatcher v. State, 43 Texas Crim. Rep., 237. And it does not alter the rule that a portion of the acts, such as placing Converse in jail, was done in Mexico.
While the witness Santiago Perea may not have seen appellant and the others in fact take bodily charge of Converse, yet he saw them when they had him in charge taking him across the river, and the court did not err in permitting him to so state.
Converse was kidnapped on February 20th. Appellant sought to raise the issue that the place where they took charge of Converse was in fact in Mexico and not in the United States, and under such circumstances there was no error in permitting Mr. Howell to testify that he was at this place just eight days thereafter, and detail facts which tended to show that the point of arrest was in fact in El Paso County.. Eight days would not be so- remote as to render the testimony inadmissible, and it is not suggested even by the testimony that conditions had been altered the least during those few days.
After again thoroughly reviewing this record, we are of the opinion that the testimony shows beyond question that the place where appellant took charge of Converse is in El Paso County, and he was carried by appellant across the border, and delivered to the Mexican soldiers, and the motion-for rehearing should be overruled.

Overruled.