Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 16 June 1915 |
| Docket Number | (No. 3627.) |
| Parties | BROWN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Taylor County; Thomas L. Blanton, Judge.
Ernest Brown was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Will S. Payne, of Abilene, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Upon an indictment charging him with burglary, appellant entered a plea of guilty, filing a plea asking that the sentence be suspended. The record shows that the court admonished the defendant as to the consequences of his plea, etc., and he insisted on entering the plea. The state introduced evidence tending to show that the barn of J. H. Couch had been burglarized and some 30 bushels of wheat taken therefrom. At the conclusion of the evidence offered in behalf of the state, appellant took the stand and testified he had never before been convicted of a felony in this or any other state. No other questions were asked him by his counsel, but the state cross-examined him as to the mode, manner, etc., of committing this offense. The only bill of exceptions in the record complains that the court erred in permitting the state to cross-examine appellant and inquire about the burglary, for he says he took the stand only to testify that he had never theretofore been convicted of a felony. A defendant cannot be compelled to testify in any case; but, when he once voluntarily takes the stand, it is not only about matters he testified to on direct examination that he can be cross-examined, but he can be questioned about any matter legitimately connected with the matter under inquiry. He becomes as any other witness in the case; the cross-examination is not confined to matters elicited on his examination in chief. Brown v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 597, 44 S. W. 176, and cases cited in section 970 of White's Ann. Proc. But, independent of this, this testimony would be admissible on his plea of suspension of the sentence. The state would have the right to inquire into the mode and manner of committing the offense as an aid to the jury in determining whether or not they would suspend the sentence. It might be the first offense, yet committed in such a way as to show him unworthy of the mercy shown in suspending the sentence for the first offense.
Appellant also contends that the evidence is insufficient to show burglary. It is true that appellant testified the door of the barn was open, but Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brumfield v. State
...examined about the crime charged and a judicial confession obtained. Such cross-examination was held proper. See also Brown v. State, 77 Tex.Cr.R. 183, 177 S.W. 1161. In Tyler v. State, supra, the court properly refused to permit the defendant to testify for the limited purpose of showing w......
-
Holder v. State
...62 Tex.Cr.R. 561, 138 S.W. [607], 609; Burton v. State [Tex.Cr.App.], 148 S.W. 805; Serrato v. State , 171 S.W. [1133], 1142; Brown v. State , 177 S.W. 1161." By bill of exceptions No. 5 it is shown that a Mrs. Young and a Mrs. Hicks testified, upon the hearing of the motion for a new trial......
-
Belton v. State, 27979
...penitentiary. The verdict is not vitiated by the omission of the word 'confinement' therein. 42 Tex.Jur. 488, Sec. 378; Brown v. State, 77 Tex.Cr.R. 183, 177 S.W. 1161; Moreland v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 470, 77 S.W.2d 690; Jabalie v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 412, 81 S.W.2d Finding no reversible ......
-
Perez v. State
...take the witness stand for a limited purpose, and when he testifies he may be cross-examined on the whole case. In Brown v. State, 77 Tex.Cr.R. 183, 177 S.W. 1161, the defendant pleaded guilty and took the witness stand to testify that he had never been convicted of a felony. This court hel......