Barrios v. Davis
Decision Date | 18 May 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 14983,14983 |
Parties | Antonio BARRIOS et ux., Appellants, v. Dewey Sampson DAVIS, Appellee. . Houston |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
James C. Brady, Houston, for appellants.
Alice Giessel, Houston, Talbert, Giessel, Barnett & Stone, Houston, of counsel, for appellee.
This suit was brought by appellants, Antonio Barrios and wife against Dewey Sampson Davis to recover damages for personal injuries and damages to their station wagon. On the jury verdict the court entered judgment that appellants take nothing.
Appellants assert that the trial court erred in refusing to admit in evidence the testimony of appellee with respect to an alleged plea of guilty to the offense of negligent collision in the Corporation Court of the City of Houston in connection with the collision made the basis of the present suit, and also in excluding the testimony of one James C. Pittman, an officer of said court, concerning the alleged entry of appellee's plea of guilty or that of his wife. The case is before us with only a partial statement of facts and a supplemental partial statement of facts. Appellants called appellee as an adverse witness and the latter testified out of the presence of the jury. The parties stipulated as follows with respect to his testimony:
James C. Pittman, called as a witness by appellants, testified:
The trial court did not err in excluding the foregoing testimony from the jury. It is true that where a defendant appears in person and pleads guilty to the negligent acts charged against him, his plea of guilty is admissible as an admission in a civil suit brought to recover damages resulting from such negligent acts. Canales v. Bank of California, 316 S.W.2d 314, Tex.Civ.App.1958, writ ref., n.r .e.; Fisher v. Leach, 221 S.W.2d 384, Tex.Civ.App.1949, writ ref., n .r.e.
Article 27.14, formerly Article 518, Vernon's Annotated Code of Criminal Procedure, provides that a plea of 'guilty' or a plea of 'nolo contendere' in a misdemeanor case may be made either by the defendant or his counsel in open court. In the instant case there was no plea of guilty by appellee or his counsel. There was no plea whatever by anyone. The payment of the $25.00 fine by appellee's wife did not constitute a plea of guilty. Prior to 1965, and at the time of the accident in question, payment of a fine did not constitute a finding of guilty in open court as though a plea of nolo contendere had been entered by the defendant, as it now does. Even had there been a plea of guilty it would not have been admissible in this civil suit unless made in accordance with law. Johnson v. Woods, 315 S.W.2d 75, Tex.Civ.App.1958, writ ref., n.r.e.; Sherwood v. Murray, 233 S.W.2d 879, Tex.Civ.App., no writ history; Bowie v. Harris, 351 S.W.2d 668, Tex.Civ.App.1961, writ ref ., n.r.e.; Mooneyhan v. Benedict, 284 S.W.2d 741, Tex.Civ.App., writ ref., n.r.e.
Appellants assert that the court erred in permitting appellee's counsel, over their objections...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lebrecht v. Tuli
...Illinois should allow this type of questioning. Sears; Wilson v. Stilwill (1981), 411 Mich. 587, 309 N.W.2d 898; Barrios v. Davis (Tex.Civ.App.1967), 415 S.W.2d 714. The trial here occurred prior to the Sears decision. However, two courts had addressed a similar question. In McMahon, plaint......
-
Wilson v. Stilwill
...Ager v. Baltimore Transit Co., 213 Md. 414, 132 A.2d 469 (1957), Russell v. Young, 452 S.W.2d 434 (Tex., 1970), and Barrios v. Davis, 415 S.W.2d 714 (Tex.Civ.App.1967). In Murero v. Reinhart Lumber Co., 85 Cal.App. 385, 259 P. 494 (1927), the court declared that evidence that a physician ha......
-
Turner v. Silver
...fine, is not an admission against interest in the civil case involving the offense, and is not admissible in evidence. Barrios v. Davis, 415 S.W.2d 714 (Tex.Civ.App.1967); Lucas v. Burrows, 499 S.W.2d 212 (Tex.Civ.App.1973); Kelly v. Simoutis, 90 N.H. 87, 4 A.2d 868 (1939), cited on other g......
-
Sears v. Rutishauser
...Baltimore Transit Co. (1957), 213 Md. 414, 132 A.2d 469; Lammert v. Wells (1929), 321 Mo. 952, 13 S.W.2d 547; see also Barrios v. Davis (Tex.Civ.App.1967), 415 S.W.2d 714; Wilson v. Stilwill (1981), 411 Mich. 587, 309 N.W.2d 898.) We believe such cross-examination should be permitted in thi......