Phipps v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Phipps v. State

272 S.W. 209, 100 Tex. Crim. 607, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 601

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 8, 1925

DocketNo. 8843.

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 272 S.W. 209 (Phipps 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

Phipps v. State, 272 S.W. 209, 100 Tex. Crim. 607, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 601 (Tex. 1925).

Pincite

Opinions

LATTIMORE, Judge. —

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Bosque County of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.

*608 The facts show appellant’s presence a number of times at a place where, a large still was located and operated for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and his participation therein.

The case originated in Somervell County and was transferred by the district judge of his own motion to Bosque County. When the case was called for trial in Bosque County appellant interposed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that he was not present and consenting to the change of venue. In Littleton v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep. 206, the matter is discussed at length and authorities collated. Since the early case of Rothschild v. State, 7 Texas Crim. App. 519, it has been the doctrine in this State that it is not necessary that the accused be present when the order for change of venue is made in his case. Orders made by the court relative to change of venue are regarded as being preliminary to the trial and nót a part of the trial itself. The matter of making an order so changing the venue of the court’s own motion is addressed almost entirely to his discretion and may be made whether the accused consents or not. Appellant cites Butler v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep. 560, and Harris v. State, 150 S. W. Rep. 447. These cases are discussed by this court in the comparatively recent case of Haley v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep. 649, and in so far as they conflicted with that .opinion, were overruled.

We regret that we cannot agree with appellant in his contention that the evidence does not support the verdict. Appellant’s first bill of exceptions complains of the overruling of his plea to the jurisdiction, and the remaining bill appears to be taken to a large part of the argument of the State’s attorney, much of which must necessarily have been germane and cannot be considered by us as prejudicial without some.showing other than as appears in the bill.

No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge. —

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Bosque County of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.

*608 The facts show appellant’s presence a number of times at a place where, a large still was located and operated for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and his participation therein.

The case originated in Somervell County and was transferred by the district judge of his own motion to Bosque County. When the case was called for trial in Bosque County appellant interposed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that he was not present and consenting to the change of venue. In Littleton v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep. 206, the matter is discussed at length and authorities collated. Since the early case of Rothschild v. State, 7 Texas Crim. App. 519, it has been the doctrine in this State that it is not necessary that the accused be present when the order for change of venue is made in his case. Orders made by the court relative to change of venue are regarded as being preliminary to the trial and nót a part of the trial itself. The matter of making an order so changing the venue of the court’s own motion is addressed almost entirely to his discretion and may be made whether the accused consents or not. Appellant cites Butler v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep. 560, and Harris v. State, 150 S. W. Rep. 447. These cases are discussed by this court in the comparatively recent case of Haley v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep. 649, and in so far as they conflicted with that .opinion, were overruled.

We regret that we cannot agree with appellant in his contention that the evidence does not support the verdict. Appellant’s first bill of exceptions complains of the overruling of his plea to the jurisdiction, and the remaining bill appears to be taken to a large part of the argument of the State’s attorney, much of which must necessarily have been germane and cannot be considered by us as prejudicial without some.showing other than as appears in the bill.

No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 S.W. 209, 100 Tex. Crim. 607, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phipps-v-state-texcrimapp-1925.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack