Newsom v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Newsom v. State

245 S.W.2d 496, 157 Tex. Crim. 18, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1837

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 19, 1951

DocketNo. 25591

StatusPublished

This text of 245 S.W.2d 496 (Newsom 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

Newsom v. State, 245 S.W.2d 496, 157 Tex. Crim. 18, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1837 (Tex. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged with the sale of whisky and with two prior convictions for similar offenses. The jury found him guilty and assessed a penalty of . one year in jail and a fifteen hundred dollar fine.

The proceedings appear regular and the evidence introduced by the state amply supports the jury’s verdict. We find in the record two bills of exception, each of which complains of the court’s failure to grant his first motion for a continuance and, also, numerous other acts involving the procedure by which the court had the absent witness brought into court by ambulance and attempted to force him to testify in answer to defendant’s questions. The witness was a close relative. He was afflicted with chronic tuberculosis, had been previously convicted of some offense, and was by some means relieved of confinement in jail at the time he was brought to the court room on a stretcher. Half a dozen or more complaints are found in each of these bills of exception. Each bill is multifarious and cannot be considered.

In the absence of bills of exception and even with the bills, [19]*19if they could be considered along with the qualifications, there is nothing for this court to pass on.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged with the sale of whisky and with two prior convictions for similar offenses. The jury found him guilty and assessed a penalty of . one year in jail and a fifteen hundred dollar fine.

The proceedings appear regular and the evidence introduced by the state amply supports the jury’s verdict. We find in the record two bills of exception, each of which complains of the court’s failure to grant his first motion for a continuance and, also, numerous other acts involving the procedure by which the court had the absent witness brought into court by ambulance and attempted to force him to testify in answer to defendant’s questions. The witness was a close relative. He was afflicted with chronic tuberculosis, had been previously convicted of some offense, and was by some means relieved of confinement in jail at the time he was brought to the court room on a stretcher. Half a dozen or more complaints are found in each of these bills of exception. Each bill is multifarious and cannot be considered.

In the absence of bills of exception and even with the bills, [19]*19if they could be considered along with the qualifications, there is nothing for this court to pass on.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 S.W.2d 496, 157 Tex. Crim. 18, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newsom-v-state-texcrimapp-1951.