Bankston v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Bankston v. State

189 S.W.2d 142, 189 S.W. 142, 80 Tex. Crim. 225, 1916 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 303

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 25, 1916

DocketNo. 4242.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 S.W.2d 142 (Bankston v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bankston v. State, 189 S.W.2d 142, 189 S.W. 142, 80 Tex. Crim. 225, 1916 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 303 (Tex. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

HABPEB, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of manslaughter and his punishment assessed at five years confinement in the State penitentiary.

There are but two bills of exception in the record, and they both relate to remarks made by the court to Florence Hill, a witness for defendant, while she was being cross-examined by the State’s attorney. In both bills it is merely stated the defendant objected, no grounds of objection being stated. The bills are wholly insufficient to present any question for review, but take the examination of the witness and it shows, instead of answering the questions propounded to her, she was arguing with the district attorney, and the court told her not to argue, but to answer the questions propounded, and if she did not .he would send her to jail. Again, when the district attorney was asking the *226 witness how far it was from a certain house to the buggy shed, the court remarked this distance was in evidence. The district attorney remarked it was a disputed question, when the court remarked, “I don’t think you can establish it by her—she don’t know which end she stands on.” If the bills were full and complete in every respect to present the question that perhaps these remarks were such as to discredit the witness with the jury, that being the only objection that could be made, the remarks.would not call for a reversal of the case. It is apparent the witness was captious, refusing to answer questions by giving evasive and argumentative answers, and under such circumstances" the court has the right to require a witness to answer the questions propounded. In the statement of facts the testimony of this witness is in question and answer form, and we will here say that the action of the court was fully warranted by the conduct of the witness.

The only other question raised is as to the sufficiency of the evidence. A short synopsis of the testimony was given in the opinion on the former appeal in this case, reported in 76 Texas Crim. Rep., 504, 175 S. W. Rep., 1068, and we do not deem it necessary to do so again. In our opinion the evidence is sufficient, and would support a verdict of a higher grade of offense.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HABPEB, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of manslaughter and his punishment assessed at five years confinement in the State penitentiary.

There are but two bills of exception in the record, and they both relate to remarks made by the court to Florence Hill, a witness for defendant, while she was being cross-examined by the State’s attorney. In both bills it is merely stated the defendant objected, no grounds of objection being stated. The bills are wholly insufficient to present any question for review, but take the examination of the witness and it shows, instead of answering the questions propounded to her, she was arguing with the district attorney, and the court told her not to argue, but to answer the questions propounded, and if she did not .he would send her to jail. Again, when the district attorney was asking the *226 witness how far it was from a certain house to the buggy shed, the court remarked this distance was in evidence. The district attorney remarked it was a disputed question, when the court remarked, “I don’t think you can establish it by her—she don’t know which end she stands on.” If the bills were full and complete in every respect to present the question that perhaps these remarks were such as to discredit the witness with the jury, that being the only objection that could be made, the remarks.would not call for a reversal of the case. It is apparent the witness was captious, refusing to answer questions by giving evasive and argumentative answers, and under such circumstances" the court has the right to require a witness to answer the questions propounded. In the statement of facts the testimony of this witness is in question and answer form, and we will here say that the action of the court was fully warranted by the conduct of the witness.

The only other question raised is as to the sufficiency of the evidence. A short synopsis of the testimony was given in the opinion on the former appeal in this case, reported in 76 Texas Crim. Rep., 504, 175 S. W. Rep., 1068, and we do not deem it necessary to do so again. In our opinion the evidence is sufficient, and would support a verdict of a higher grade of offense.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.W.2d 142, 189 S.W. 142, 80 Tex. Crim. 225, 1916 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bankston-v-state-texcrimapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack