Campbell v. State

• Decision Date: 10 February 1909
• Parties: CAMPBELL v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

116 S.W. 581

CAMPBELL v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

February 10, 1909.

Appeal from Hill County Court; N. J. Smith, Judge.

P. B. Campbell was convicted of selling liquor in violation of the local option law, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Collins & Cummings, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

RAMSEY, J.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of Hill county, Tex., for a violation of the local option law. In his appeal to this court, appellant raises many questions. The sale in question was alleged to have been made by appellant to one E. E. Britton. The sale, or any sale or transaction with Britton, was distinctly denied by appellant, and it was as distinctly denied that he sold to Britton any liquors that were intoxicating.

While appellant was on the witness stand in his own behalf, he was asked, on cross-examination, if it was not a fact that he sold one T. A. Aston, the next day after the alleged sale to the prosecuting witness, Britton, a liquid composed of cider and whisky mixed, and filled it from behind the counter and set it up. Over objections of appellant he was compelled to answer, and did answer, to the effect, in substance, that he did not sell anything to Aston. This question and the answer sought to be adduced thereby was objected to, for the reason that it was an inquiry as to a different sale at a different time and to a different party than the one charged in the information, involved another and distinct transaction, and was irrelevant, immaterial, and highly prejudicial, and that it was an effort on the part of the state to lay a predicate for the purpose of introducing impeaching testimony upon an irrelevant, immaterial, and prejudicial issue. In connection with this matter, it appears that in rebuttal the state placed the witness T. A. Aston on the stand, and asked him if he went into the appellant's place of business on the 23d day of November and bought intoxicating liquors from the defendant. This question and the answer sought to be elicited thereby were at the time objected to on the ground that the same were irrelevant, immaterial, and could throw no light on the transaction between the appellant and the witness E. E. Britton on the preceding day, and that the same was an effort to prove separate, distinct, and extraneous crimes, and was an effort to impeach the defendant upon an immaterial, irrelevant and collateral issue. These objections were by the court...