Miller v. State

21 S.W. 925, 31 Tex. Crim. 609, 1893 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 183
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided March 25, 1893·No. No. 60.·Published·Cited by 66 cases

Opinion

Appellant prosecutes this appeal from a conviction of murder in the first degree, with the death penalty assessed.

1. When the cause was called for trial, he applied for a change of venue, based upon both grounds mentioned in the statute. To this application was attached an exhibit — a newspaper account of the actions of a mob which sought to take defendant from custody for the purpose of hanging him. The controverting affidavit filed by the State was sufficient, both *Page 635 as to form and substance; wherefore the court did not err in overruling defendant's exceptions to the same. Willson's Crim. Stats., secs. 2209, 2210. The application was refused, and defendant excepted, but the evidence adduced on the trial of the issues involved in the motion is not incorporated in the bill of exceptions; and it is therefore insufficient to authorize, on appeal, a revision of this ruling of the court. Code Crim. Proc., art. 584; Blackwell v. The State, 29 Texas Ct. App. 194[29 Tex. Crim. 194]; Lacy v. The State, 30 Texas Ct. App. 119[30 Tex. Crim. 119]. Attaching the newspaper account to the application as an exhibit does not authorize its consideration as evidence in support of such application. Lacy v. The State, Id.

2. Defendant sought a continuance; first, because there existed a prejudice so great and a combination of influential persons so strong, that he could not obtain a fair and impartial trial in Dallas County; and second, for the testimony of one Brown, by whom he "expected to prove, that a few nights prior to the homicide several policemen with others came to his house in the city of Dallas, and then and there talked with said Brown, and inquired of said witness the whereabouts of defendant, and said they proposed to arrest defendant, and that he would then be killed by some man who they then named to said witness." The application fails to show diligence to secure the attendance of the witness. Defendant was served with a copy of the indictment on June 9, and his trial occurred July 14 following. The process for the witness is not attached to the motion, nor is it inserted in the bill of exceptions, and neither states the date of its issuance, nor is it shown that further process was not required. But if diligence be conceded, the allegations are too vague and indefinite. Neither the name of defendant's proposed slayer, nor that of any of the parties who visited his house, is given. Nor would the testimony as set out be admissible. General statements will not suffice, nor will mere inferences or indefinite allegations. The facts expected to be proved must be stated definitely. Miller v. The State (Texas Crim. App.), 20 S.W. Rep., 1103; Williams v. The State, 10 Texas Ct. App. 114[10 Tex. Crim. 114]; Grissom v. The State, 8 Texas Ct. App. 386[8 Tex. Crim. 386]; Thomas v. The State, 17 Texas Ct. App. 437[17 Tex. Crim. 437]; Mitchell v. The State, 1 Texas Ct. App. 195[1 Tex. Crim. 195].

3. This homicide occurred on May 24. The State, over defendant's objection, was permitted to prove that an affidavit was prepared on May 23, and filed on May 25, charging defendant with the offense of slander; that the acting chief of police was informed of that fact; that he instructed the police force to arrest defendant; that in obedience to this order he was arrested, and this constituted the only authority for his arrest. This testimony was objected to because irrelevant and incompetent. The effect of this testimony was to show the arrest without warrant, and thus it tended to maintain the defensive theory of illegal arrest, and for this purpose was legitimate, and did not, because offered by the prosecution, become incompetent. *Page 636

4. The affidavit charging defendant with the offense of slander was also admitted in evidence. The slander charged imputed to the female mentioned a want of chastity of a most revolting nature. The contents were hardly germane to any issue in the case, in the absence of evidence bringing home knowledge to defendant of the existence of the affidavit, and we are not prepared to say that it may not have prejudiced defendant in the minds of the jury. The court, however, subsequently withdrew the affidavit from the consideration of the jury, and instructed them verbally, as well as in writing, to disregard it as evidence in the case.

The effect of withdrawing and excluding testimony erroneously admitted, which was or may have been prejudicial in its nature and tendency, has been the subject of much discussion in the courts, and the decisions are not harmonious upon the question. The weight of authority, however, seems to be that such withdrawal cures the error, and such has been the opinion entertained by this court. Sutton v. The State, 2 Texas Ct. App. 342[2 Tex. Crim. 342]; Marshall v. The State, 5 Texas Ct. App. 273[5 Tex. Crim. 273]; Phillips v. The State, 22 Texas Ct. App. 139[22 Tex. Crim. 139]; Nalley v. The State, 28 Texas Ct. App. 387[28 Tex. Crim. 387]. See also, State v. Fowler, 13 R. I., 661; Thomp. Trials, secs. 715, 722, 723, and notes.

In Sutton's case, supra, it was said: "But conceding the court erred in admitting this testimony, the error, if in fact any was committed, was corrected by the court afterwards withdrawing it from the considertion of the jury." This ruling has been approved in subsequent cases, and the doctrine uniformly upheld, that when improper evidence has been admitted over objection, it is the proper practice, and may become the duty of the court, to exclude or withdraw it from the jury, and instruct them to disregard it in finding their verdict. Authorities above cited; Willson's Crim. Stats., sec. 2514.

To hold otherwise would be to sanction the doctrine that the court could not cure any error into which it may have fallen by mistake or inadvertence, and thus render it helpless to rectify errors committed, and the trial a mockery and a farce. We call not sanction such a doctrine. It is not intended here to hold that cases may not arise in which the withdrawal of testimony would not cure the error committed in admitting same; for it may occur that such evidence was of such a prejudicial character as to so influence the jury against the defendant that he would be deprived of a fair and impartial trial. We do not think, however, this evidence of that character.

5. The State proved by Arnold, that about three weeks prior to the killing, defendant, speaking of his previous arrests by deceased and other policemen, said "that every officer who gave him bond or took his recognizance, it was all right, and he would be there the next morning; but if he would not be allowed to give bond, and had a gun with him, he would *Page 637 be damned if the fight didn't, begin right there. He made similar statements to me repeatedly in the past year." Objections were urged, that this testimony was irrelevant, showed no malice towards deceased, and tended to confuse and mislead the jury. Deceased was a policeman, was specially mentioned by defendant in connection with his previous arrests and conditional threats, was connected with the arrest of defendant just preceding the homicide, and was seeking his arrest at the time he was shot and killed. The evidence was directly pertinent to the issue of malice and motive. Campbell v. The State, 15 Texas Ct. App. 506[15 Tex. Crim. 506]; McKinney v. The State, 8 Texas Ct. App. 626[8 Tex. Crim.

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

Miller v. State, 21 S.W. 925, 31 Tex. Crim. 609, 1893 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 183 (Tex. 1893).

21 S.W. 925 (Miller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Waldo v. State
746 S.W.2d 750 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1988)
Dillard v. State
477 S.W.2d 547 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Bates v. State
321 S.W.2d 76 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1959)
Kepley v. State
320 S.W.2d 143 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1959)
Anthony v. State
182 S.W.2d 917 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1944)
McBride v. State
51 S.W.2d 385 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Humphries v. State
43 S.W.2d 116 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Cotton v. State
32 S.W.2d 648 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1930)
State v. Burzette
222 N.W. 394 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1928)
Martin v. State
295 S.W. 1098 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Ex Parte L.G. Hanks
261 S.W. 1027 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Hill v. State
255 S.W. 433 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Nichols v. State
238 S.W. 232 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Hunt v. State
229 S.W. 869 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Daggett v. State
208 S.W. 171 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Morris v. State
206 S.W. 82 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Brown v. State
203 S.W. 898 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Stephens v. State
201 S.W. 406 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Merka v. State
199 S.W. 1123 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Marshbanks v. State
192 S.W.2d 246 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1917)