Binnion v. State, 53830
Decision Date | 07 December 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 53830,53830 |
Parties | Jesse Marion BINNION, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
DAVIS, Commissioner.
Appeal is taken from a conviction for delivery of marihuana. Punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, was assessed at life.
The State offered evidence that appellant sold 14.19 ounces of marihuana to Jerry Davis for $160.00. At the time of the sale, Davis was an undercover investigator working for the Ector County District Attorney's Office.
The appellant contends that "the trial court erred in excluding evidence which could have impeached" Davis. During cross-examination, Davis testified that he had never smoked any marihuana and that he had never offered to sell any heroin to the appellant.
The appellant offered the testimony of Linda Hickman and Carroll Bowman in an effort to impeach these statements. The trial court excluded most of Hickman's and all of Bowman's testimony. Hickman did testify at one time before the jury that she saw Davis offer to sell the appellant heroin. After lengthy argument, the trial court ruled that this was a collateral matter and sustained the State's objection. By way of a bill of exception, appellant shows that Hickman would have testified that she saw Davis offer to sell heroin to the appellant, and that she had seen Davis smoking marihuana.
The court excluded all of Bowman's testimony, but the bill of exception shows he would have testified that he saw Davis offer to sell the appellant some heroin.
Evidence of specific acts of misconduct by a witness is not generally admissible for impeachment purposes. Hoffman v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 514 S.W.2d 248; Randolph v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 499 S.W.2d 311; Thrash v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 213. An exception to this rule is set forth in Montemayor v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 543 S.W.2d 93. In Montemayor, this Court stated:
The testimony of Davis that he had never offered to sell heroin to appellant and that he had not smoked marihuana cannot be considered as minor details of his testimony.
The proffered impeachment testimony went to the credibility of the witness and had a relationship to the instant case.
The State urges that the witness Hickman did in fact get her testimony before the jury that Davis offered to sell appellant heroin. The record reflects that immediately prior to the court retiring the jury the following transpired:
At this point, the jury was removed from the courtroom and the witness answered in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bates v. State
...any false impressions conveyed to the jury by the initial testimony. Montemayor v. State, 543 S.W.2d 93 (Tex.Cr.App.); Binnion v. State, 558 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.Cr.App.); Randolph v. State, 499 S.W.2d 311 (Tex.Cr.App.); Freeman v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 626, 317 S.W.2d 726; Redding v. State, 161 ......
-
Cooper v. State, 55445
...Davis on collateral matters. The trial court was in error concerning his second reason for exclusion of the testimony. Binnion v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 558 S.W.2d 485, involved the same undercover agent and impeachment testimony. There the exclusion of such evidence was deemed reversible erro......