Siebe v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Siebe v. State

244 S.W. 1013, 92 Tex. Crim. 605, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 583

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 15, 1922

DocketNo. 6692.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 244 S.W. 1013 (Siebe 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

Siebe v. State, 244 S.W. 1013, 92 Tex. Crim. 605, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 583 (Tex. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

*606 HAWKIN, Judge.

— Conviction is for adultery, punishment being a fine of $500.

We do not detail the evidence. It was conflicting and presented an issue purely for the jury. They evidently accepted the testimony of the State’s witnesses as reflecting the truth of the matter, and this evidence being sufficient to support the judgment, we would not feel authorized to set it aside.

The charge against appellant was for adultery with Mrs. Gadke. She had sued for divorce which was tried before Judge Ewing Boyd. Upon trial of the instant case Judge Boyd permitted to testify over objection that appellant admitted upon the trial of the divorce case that he had paid part of her attorney’s fee in that case. This testimony was admissible.

During argument of the prosecuting attorney he used the following language, which was objected to: “No wonder why men and organizations take the laws into their own hands, because juries fail to convict in this county.” The bill only sets out the language complained of. It does not show in what connection it was used. It might, or might not, present a matter which we would regard as calling for reversal ; but in the absence of more information than we have from the bill before us we cannot presume such to be true, especially in the absence of a request that the jury be instructed to disregard the language.

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court permitting Mrs. Burley to testify after the witnesses had been placed under the rule. It appears from the bill that she had only been in the courtroom about five minutes when called to the witness stand, and said she had heard none of the evidence.

Appellant’s motion for new trial, among other grounds set up newly discovered evidence. The motion itself, and the affidavit attached thereto, are sworn to before appellant’s attorney, and therefore can- • not be considered. (See authorities collated under Article 840, Vernon’s C. C. P., note 10, also Steele v. State, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 588, 223 S. W. Rep., 473; Kellum v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 272, 240 S. W. Rep., 1109.)

Finding no errors for which the case should be reversed the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

*606 HAWKIN, Judge.

— Conviction is for adultery, punishment being a fine of $500.

We do not detail the evidence. It was conflicting and presented an issue purely for the jury. They evidently accepted the testimony of the State’s witnesses as reflecting the truth of the matter, and this evidence being sufficient to support the judgment, we would not feel authorized to set it aside.

The charge against appellant was for adultery with Mrs. Gadke. She had sued for divorce which was tried before Judge Ewing Boyd. Upon trial of the instant case Judge Boyd permitted to testify over objection that appellant admitted upon the trial of the divorce case that he had paid part of her attorney’s fee in that case. This testimony was admissible.

During argument of the prosecuting attorney he used the following language, which was objected to: “No wonder why men and organizations take the laws into their own hands, because juries fail to convict in this county.” The bill only sets out the language complained of. It does not show in what connection it was used. It might, or might not, present a matter which we would regard as calling for reversal ; but in the absence of more information than we have from the bill before us we cannot presume such to be true, especially in the absence of a request that the jury be instructed to disregard the language.

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court permitting Mrs. Burley to testify after the witnesses had been placed under the rule. It appears from the bill that she had only been in the courtroom about five minutes when called to the witness stand, and said she had heard none of the evidence.

Appellant’s motion for new trial, among other grounds set up newly discovered evidence. The motion itself, and the affidavit attached thereto, are sworn to before appellant’s attorney, and therefore can- • not be considered. (See authorities collated under Article 840, Vernon’s C. C. P., note 10, also Steele v. State, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 588, 223 S. W. Rep., 473; Kellum v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 272, 240 S. W. Rep., 1109.)

Finding no errors for which the case should be reversed the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 S.W. 1013, 92 Tex. Crim. 605, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siebe-v-state-texcrimapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack