Rodriguez v. State

Citations

• 23 Tex. Ct. App. 503
• 5 S.W. 255
• 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 117

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—Special Venire—Amendment.—The trial court has authority to require the sheriff, upon application of the prosecuting counsel, to so amend his return upon the special venire as to show the diligence used by him in attempting to obtain service upon the veniremen not summoned.</p> <p>2. Same.—It is not required that every person drawn as a juror upon a special or other venire shall be summoned, but only that the sheriff shall exercise reasonable diligence to summon them. An accused is not entitled to process for veniremen not summoned.</p> <p>3. Same—Leading Questions.—Intellectual weakness or impotent or feeble comprehension of a witness constitutes an exception to the general rule that leading questions can not be propounded. See the opinion for circumstances under which it is held that the rule in the first instance was not infringed, and that, while infringed in the second instance, it was without prejudice to the accused, and therefore does not constitute reversible error.</p> <p>4. Same—Impeaching Testimony.—It is a well settled rule of practice that it is only when an impugned witness has denied, either directly or by qualification, having made statements contradictory of his or her testimony upon the trial, that proof of such statements is admissible.</p> <p>6. Same.—Trial judges are prohibited by statute from discussing or commenting upon evidence of disputed admissibility, and are required to decide simply whether the proposed evidence is admissible. But the error in this ease is immaterial, inasmuch, as the proposed evidence was rejected, and (he remarks of the judge could not have influenced the jury nor have prejudiced the defendant.</p> <p>6. Murder—Fact Case.—See the statement of the case for evidence held sufficient to support a capital conviction for murder.</p>