Opinion
No. 16268.
Delivered January 24, 1934.
1. — Immunity — Statute.
Where accused went before the grand jury voluntarily, after proper warning, and thereafter voluntarily made a statement which was reduced to writing but which was not used against him on trial, held, accused would not be entitled to immunity from prosecution under the provisions of article 694, P. C.
2. — General Reputation — Suspended Sentence.
The filing of an application for a suspended sentence placed accused's general reputation as a law-abiding citizen in issue.
3. — Same.
Permitting witnesses for state to testify that accused's general reputation as a peaceable and law-abiding citizen was bad, held not error where accused had filed his application for a suspended sentence and introduced proof in support thereof.
4. — Appeal — Bills of Exception.
Bills of exception complaining of certain questions asked defendant on cross-examination but not disclosing what the answers were, held insufficient to show error.
Appeal from the District Court of Haskell County. Tried below before the Hon. Clyde Grissom, Judge.
Appeal from conviction for transporting intoxicating liquor; penalty, confinement in the penitentiary for sixteen months.
Affirmed.
The opinion states the case.
Robertson Murchison, of Haskell, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
Conviction is for transportation of intoxicating liquor, the punishment assessed at sixteen months in the state penitentiary.
Appellant entered his plea of guilty, under which the state introduced the testimony of officers showing the transportation, also a confession of appellant made to the prosecuting attorney. Appellant testified himself admitting all facts necessary to show guilt.
A plea in bar of the prosecution was filed averring that appellant had been required to appear before the grand jury and there give evidence regarding the very offense for which he was on trial. He claimed immunity under article 694, P. C. The bill of exception relating to the matter is qualified by the trial judge and shows that appellant appeared before the grand jury voluntarily; that he was properly warned, and thereafter voluntarily made a statement which was reduced to writing, but which, however, was not used against him on the trial. The facts do not bring said article 694 into operation. Medlock v. State, 108 Tex.Crim. Rep., 1 S.W.2d 308; Blanks v. State, 111 Tex.Crim. Rep., 13 S.W.2d 373, and cases therein cited.
Appellant also complains that the trial court, over objection, permitted witnesses for the state to testify that his general reputation as a peaceable and law-abiding citizen was bad. Appellant had filed his application for a suspended sentence, and introduced proof in support thereof. The filing of the plea placed appellant's reputation in issue and the evidence complained of was properly received. Long v. State, 48 S.W.2d 632; Whitlock v. State, 58 S.W.2d 109.
Other bills of exception register complaint because of certain questions asked appellant on cross-examination. The bills do not disclose what the answers were and for that reason are obviously insufficient.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.