Menges v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Menges v. State

2 S.W. 812, 21 Tex. Ct. App. 413, 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 163

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 2, 1886

DocketNo. 3961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 S.W. 812 (Menges v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Menges v. State, 2 S.W. 812, 21 Tex. Ct. App. 413, 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 163 (Tex. Ct. App. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Willson, Judge.

Defendant’s ninth bill of exceptions is well taken. A sufficient predicate for the admission of the testimony of. Gorman, which testimony had been taken before an examining court, was not laid by the State. It was not shown that said Gorman resided out of this State, or had removed beyond the limits of this State, or that he was dead, or that he had been prevented from attending the court through the act or agency of the defendant, etc. (Code Crim. Proc., Arts. 772, 773, 774.) The ere absence of the witness out of the State did not render his testimony admissible. (Cooper v. The State, 7 Texas Ct. App., 194; Pinkney v. The State, 12 Texas Ct. App., 352; Evans v. The State, 12 Texas Ct. App., 370.) This testimony was material, and its admission over the objections of the defendant was error for which the conviction must be set aside.

As to other testimony admitted over defendant’s objections, we perceive no error. Other questions presented in the record are not considered, because of a character not likely to occur on another trial.

Because of the error of admitting the testimony of Gorman, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Beversed and remanded.

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

Willson, Judge.

Defendant’s ninth bill of exceptions is well taken. A sufficient predicate for the admission of the testimony of. Gorman, which testimony had been taken before an examining court, was not laid by the State. It was not shown that said Gorman resided out of this State, or had removed beyond the limits of this State, or that he was dead, or that he had been prevented from attending the court through the act or agency of the defendant, etc. (Code Crim. Proc., Arts. 772, 773, 774.) The ere absence of the witness out of the State did not render his testimony admissible. (Cooper v. The State, 7 Texas Ct. App., 194; Pinkney v. The State, 12 Texas Ct. App., 352; Evans v. The State, 12 Texas Ct. App., 370.) This testimony was material, and its admission over the objections of the defendant was error for which the conviction must be set aside.

As to other testimony admitted over defendant’s objections, we perceive no error. Other questions presented in the record are not considered, because of a character not likely to occur on another trial.

Because of the error of admitting the testimony of Gorman, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Beversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 S.W. 812, 21 Tex. Ct. App. 413, 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menges-v-state-texapp-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack