Caldwell v. State
| Decision Date | 04 December 1907 |
| Parties | CALDWELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Henderson County Court; J. R. Blades, Judge.
B. Caldwell was convicted of carrying a pistol, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Miller & Royall, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is a conviction for carrying a pistol.
On cross-examination of appellant, and over his objection, the state was permitted to elicit from him, for the purpose of impeaching him, that, among other things, he had been guilty of or charged with carrying a pistol on previous occasions to the one alleged in the information. Appellant could not be impeached by proof that he had been previously charged with carrying or, having carried a pistol. This does not come within the rule authorizing the introduction of evidence which would impugn his testimony. See Bain v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 635, 44 S. W. 518. It was an issue in this case as to whether or not the weapon exhibited was a pistol within the contemplation of the law. The state's case showed very clearly that it was a complete pistol and a new one. The defendant's evidence was that it was an old pistol without a cylinder, and in fact was not a pistol at all within the contemplation of the law. The introduction of the impeaching evidence above mentioned may have had some bearing upon the minds of the jury, as they resolved the reasonable doubt against him. With reference to the offense to which he was required to testify, we would say the bill of exceptions is rather indefinite and hardly requires a discussion. Usually the fact that a party was previously charged with assault to murder, arson, and graver offenses of that character, and even gaming, has been admitted for the purpose of impeaching, provided their occurrence was not too remote. The bill just recites the fact that they were introduced over his objection. As to when they should have occurred, or at what time he went to the penitentiary for the assault to murder, is not stated in the bill. For the introduction of the impeaching testimony this judgment must be reversed.
Appellant offered to prove that, the day following that on which the state claimed he carried a pistol, he turned over a pistol to a certain proffered witness, and offered to prove by the witness the fact that he did so turn over a pistol, and also to prove by the same witness the statements he made to him at the time of giving him the broken...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mularkey v. State
...289, § 310. See, also, State v. Wardlaw, 43 Ark. 73; State v. Duzan, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 31; Ridenour v. State, 65 Ind. 411;Caldwell v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 106 S. W. 343;Hathcock v. State, 99 Ark. 65, 137 S. W. 551;State v. Bollis, 73 Miss. 57, 19 So. 99, 100. In the last case, the court sai......
-
State v. Dorsey
...following cases from other states which follow the majority rule: State v. Quail, 5 Boyce 310, 92 A. 859 (Del.1914); Caldwell v. State, 106 S.W. 343 (Tex.Cr.App.1907); Brooks v. State, 187 Tenn. 361, 215 S.W.2d 785 (1948); Cittadino v. State, 199 Miss. 235, 24 So.2d 93 (1945); People v. Hal......
-
Christopher v. State
...Davis v. State, 77 Tex.Crim. 598, 179 S.W. 702, 703 (1915); Steele v. State, 73 Tex.Crim. 352, 166 S.W. 511 (1914); Caldwell v. State, 106 S.W. 343, 344 (Tex.Crim.1907). A rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was carrying a firearm on the occasion......
-
Rees v. State
...moral turpitude. Brittain v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R, 411, 37 S. W. 758; Bain v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 635, 44 S. W. 518; Caldwell v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 106 S. W. 343. We suggest, therefore, that on another trial of the case the question as to whether or not the appellant had heretofore bee......