Campbell v. State

Citations

• 8 Tex. Ct. App. 84

Syllabus

<p>1. Bsdictment. — The Code of Criminal Procedure, in art. 420, directs that an indictment “shall he signed officially by the foreman of the grand jury,” but in art. 629 expressly provides that “the want of the signature of the foreman of the grand jury ” shall not constitute cause of exception to the form of an indictment. Held, that this latter provision, in effect, makes the foreman’s signature unnecessary to the validity of an indictment.</p> <p>2. Evedeitce.—In a trial for murder, the prosecution elicited from a witness a statement of the defendant imputing to the deceased an outrage on the defendant’s daughter, and then was allowed, over objections by the defence, to draw out the reply and advice of the witness to the defendant, to the effect that defendant’s neighbors disbelieved the imputed outrage, and that defendant had better drop the matter, etc. Held, that the reply and advice of the witness were not legitimate evidence against the defendant, and may have prejudiced his rights.</p> <p>8. Same. — Over objection by the defence, the prosecution was allowed to prove certain statements of the deceased, made a day or two before the homicide and in the absence of the defendant, to the effect that he, the deceased, had not been in the county for a year previous to that occasion, —which, if true, exonerated him as the perpetrator of the outrage on the defendant’s daughter. Held, that the statements were but hearsay, and should have been excluded.</p> <p>4. Same. — The deceased was found dead, but was not recognized by any one who saw his corpse, and the prosecution, for the purpose of identifying him, was allowed to prove not only the apparel and appearance of the body, but also the description and contents of a valise found a short distance from it. Held, correct.</p>