Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 28 November 1894 |
| Citation | 28 S.W. 536 |
| Parties | BROWN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Robertson county; John N. Henderson, Judge.
Wallace Brown was convicted of theft of cattle, and appeals. Affirmed.
R. L. Henry, for the State.
Bill of Exception No. 1: The remarks of the district attorney were not improper.
Bill of Exception No. 2: Defendant offered John T. Myatt for the purpose of proving that he owned the cattle found in his possession. The state objected to his competency, supporting the objection by a record of conviction for felony. The defendant offered to prove by parol a pardon, first proving its loss. To this the state objected, and the court sustained the objection. In this there was no error. If pardoned, a certified copy of such pardon could have been obtained from the secretary of state.
Bill of Exception No. 3: McCoy, the owner of the cattle, was dead at the time of the trial. The state had a right to prove by his acts and declarations that he had not consented to the taking of the cattle, and that he was dead, and could not be adduced as a witness. In commenting on these facts, the district attorney remarked that McCoy had been murdered. The court promptly reprimanded him, and told the jury that the manner of the death had nothing to do with this case, and to disregard the remarks of the district attorney in that regard. If there was harm in the remark, it was eliminated from the case by the prompt action of the court.
There is nothing in bill of exception No. 4. The evidence is sufficient, and the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Redd v. State
...14 Mass. 234; 50 Ark. 157. Where a record of a lost writing was kept, the writing cannot be proved by parol, but only by a certified copy. 28 S.W. 536; Underhill, Ev. § 208; 18 521, 522. OPINION WOOD, J. This appeal is from a conviction of murder in the first degree. First. One of the groun......
-
State v. Dixson
... ... competent. 3 Wigmore on Evidence (2d Ed.) par. 1772; 11 Enc ... Ev. 1292. The rule is liberalized when the victim of some ... crimes is dead; then, what he said about it at first ... opportunity to speak is admissible. 3 Wigmore on Evidence (2d ... Ed.) par. 1725; 4 Enc. Ev. 76; Brown v. State (Tex. Cr ... App.) 28 S.W. 536. Jacobs died before the trial of ... defendant ... Nevertheless, ... the trial court cautioned witnesses to tell only what Jacobs ... did, in their presence, on that occasion, and not what he ... said. However, manifestly it was ... ...
-
Cherry v. State
...evidence, and makes admissible for that purpose testimony which would be inadmissible under other rules of evidence. In Brown v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 28 S. W. 536, 537, is found a statement that, where the owner is dead, "* * * the state had a right to prove by his acts and declarations th......
-
Taylor v. State
...Cr. App.) 50 S. W. 350; Hoskins v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 43 S. W. 1003; Brooks v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 31 S. W. 410; Brown v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 28 S. W. 536. It is also contended the court was in error in charging the law applicable to recent possession of stolen property; the theory b......