Court Opinion

ID: 9770440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:05:10.921427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:17.381262
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant’s earnest counsel have filed a motion for rehearing and a separate brief in support thereof. We shall discuss the contentions advanced therein.
Appellant first asserts that since he excepted to the court’s qualification of his bills of exception he was not bound by the qualifications. This would have been true if the matter had come to rest at this juncture. But the court prepared his own bills, and the appellant prepared no bystanders’ bills. This being so, we considered the court’s bills.
The venireman Furneaux was not subject to challenge for cause when tested by the rule laid down by Judge Davidson in Suit v. State, 30 Tex. Cr. Rep. 319, 17 S. W. 458, wherein it was said:
“Under the statute, in order to disqualify a juror on account *518of a conclusion on his part as to the guilt or innocence of the party on trial, two things are necessary: (1) That there is in some way established in the mind of the juror a conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of such party; (2) that such conclusion will influence the juror in his action in finding a verdict. * * * The mere fact that a juror has established in his mind a conclusion of the guilt or innocence of the party on trial is not a sufficient cause for disqualification. That conclusion, if entertained, must go further, and be of such a character ‘as will influence him in finding his verdict’.”
Appellant contends that he was unreasonably curtailed in his examination of venireman Barnes. With this we cannot agree. The bill reflects that Barnes was asked one question to which the state objected. The court sustained the objection and then said:
“You can ask him anything that you want to about whether or not his experience he has had would have an effect on him with this case whatsoever but you are attempting to present to this juror now what you are contending to be evidence — wanting him to pass on evidence now; that is why I am sustaining it. Any experience that this man has had in courts martial that might affect him serving as a juror on this case, ask him about it and I will let him answer it.”
Instead of attempting another question, counsel announced, “We pass the juror.”
With respect to the examination of venireman Thomas, we likewise note that the court inquired, “Is that all?” before announcing his ruling. However, we are at a loss to understand how the appellant could have been injured by the action of the court in excusing a venireman who had answered that irrespective of the law he would consider the indictment as some evidence of guilt.
Appellant contends that he was curtailed in his cross-examination of a doctor who testified as to his sanity. He calls our attention to a certain page in the record. We note that later in the cross-examination of the doctor the court permitted counsel to read what appears to be the entire report in question and propound his question therefrom. Appellant asked the witness if he considered several named authors as authorities. The witness answered that he could not pass judgment on the question. No error is reflected by the bills.
*519Appellant again asserts that the court fell into error in not withdrawing the confession from the consideration of the jury when he called the court’s attention to what he contends was a conflict in the witnesses’ testimony. If appellant thought that the tesimony raised an issue as to the admissibility of the confession, he should have requested that such issue be submitted to the jury. We find no such request in the record.
We have again reviewed the entire record in the light of appellant’s motion for rehearing and remain convinced that we properly decided^this cause originally.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.