Carlson v. State
Citations
- 5 Tex. Ct. App. 194
Syllabus
<p>1. Practice in this Court.—It is a settled rule that, in the absence of a statement of the facts in evidence before the court and jury, this court, on appeal, will only consider whether the indictment sustains the charge and the finding of the jury. See Longley v. The State, 3 Texas Ct. App. 611, and cases there cited.</p> <p>2. Murder — Evidence.—By bill of exceptions it appears that the defence in a murder case attempted to prove that the defendant, who, after the killing, in 1866, had gone to Missouri, sent word, in 1867 or 1868, to the private prosecutor in this case that he (defendant) was living openly at C., in said State, and was anxious to return and stand his trial, but was too poor; which evidence was objected to by the State as irrelevant and immaterial. Held, that the court below did not err in sustaining the objection.</p> <p>3. Same.—A second bill of exceptions complains of the exclusion hy the court of testimony sought, on cross-examination of the prosecuting witness) for the purpose of showing the animus of the witness. Its purport was that the witness had reliable information of the whereabouts of defendant for several years before he had the defendant brought back upon requisition, which was nbt done until several witnesses upon whom the defendant relied for his defence were dead. Held, that this testimony was properly excluded as immaterial. If the defendant chose to remain away until his witnesses died, instead of returning and placing himself under the protection of the law, he did so at his peril.</p> <p>4. Same. — A third bill of exceptions complains of the exclusion by the court of evidence on the animus of the prosecuting witness, tending to show (1) that he was informed, in 1869, that defendant was living openly at 0., in the State of Missouri; (2) that the defendant sent word to said witness that he (defendant) was anxious to come back and stand his trial, but was too poor to pay his expenses; and (3) that the residence of the defendan
Judges: Winkler
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.