Henderson v. State

Summary

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Henderson’s murder conviction and two-year penitentiary sentence. The court rejected challenges concerning the special venire, admission of evidence, attorney conduct, hearsay, continuance, and prosecutorial argument, finding no reversible error.

Holdings

1. Any error caused by the clerk's unauthorized insertion of language referring to thirty additional persons was waived when Henderson proceeded with examination and selection of jurors, and the alleged error was harmless because the jury was selected from the seventy named veniremen.
2. Because Henderson introduced testimony about numerous prior altercations and their causes, the State was entitled on cross-examination to explore the entire subject, including whether the ill feeling arose from a football-game bet.
3. The trial court properly rejected the testimony Henderson sought to elicit from Grites because the record showed that it was hearsay.
4. The denial of Henderson's continuance application was not reversible error because the bills of exception failed to establish the required diligence and other statutory or procedural prerequisites for a continuance.
5. The challenged remarks did not constitute reversible error because some were reasonable deductions from the evidence, others were invited by defense counsel, and the arguments were not sufficiently harmful or prejudicial to affect Henderson's rights.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the special venire writ was invalid because the clerk inserted language referring to thirty additional persons even though the court ordered a writ for seventy persons.
2. Whether the State could cross-examine Henderson about the cause of prior difficulties with the deceased, including a football-game bet.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by reprimanding defense counsel in the jury's presence.
4. Whether the exclusion of proposed testimony from witness Grites was reversible error because the testimony was hearsay.
5. Whether rebuttal testimony from the deceased's mother was inadmissible.
6. Whether the denial of Henderson's application for a continuance based on absent witnesses was reversible error.
7. Whether allegedly improper closing arguments by the State prejudicially affected Henderson's rights.

Disposition

affirmed