Carroll v. State

Citation24 S.W. 100
PartiesCARROLL v. STATE.
Decision Date18 November 1893
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Appeal from Bastrop county court; R. W. Sindall, Judge.

William Carroll was convicted of theft, and appeals. Affirmed.

J. P. Fowler and Jones & Garwood, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SIMKINS, J.

Appellant was convicted of theft of a pair of spurs, and his punishment assessed at one month's imprisonment, from which he appeals.

Appellant complains that the court erred in permitting the state to prove, over his objection, by Frank Glass, a witness for appellant, that he, the said Glass, was then under indictment for theft. The objection made was that a witness could be collaterally impeached only by evidence of his general reputation for truth and veracity in the neighborhood in which he lives. While the Code declares that one may impeach his own witness in any way except by proving his bad character, (Code Crim. Proc. art. 755,) it is silent as to the methods by which one may attack the credibility of a witness offered by the opposite party. It simply refers us to the rules of evidence known to the common law for guidance. Id. art. 725. Turning to this source, we find that, of the various modes of impeaching a witness, this alone has been the subject of much opposition and discussion; that is, whether a witness can be compelled to answer a question degrading him, collateral to the main issue, but relevant to his credit. In other methods of impeachment, the question is as to the application of the rule. In this the existence of the rule is denied. It seems, however, to be conceded that, if the question is relevant to the main issue in the case, the witness, upon cross-examination, is bound to answer, however degrading it may be to him. It is where the evidence is not relevant to the issue, but only goes to affect his credit, that the authorities cannot be reconciled. 1 Best, Ev. 130; 1 Greenl. Ev. 459; Whart. Crim. Ev. (8th Ed.) 474. We may, therefore, follow the authorities whose reasoning appeals strongest to our judgment, and adopt that rule which tends to elucidate the truth, which is the object of all rules of evidence.

Now, while it is true that the question "has never been solemnly settled," as stated by Mr. Greenleaf, (1 Greenl. Ev. § 459,) yet eminent judges at nisi prius trials began at an early day to permit such questions to be asked, and compelled the witness to answer them, (Whart. Crim. Ev. 474.) Lord Eldon, in speaking of this practice, thus states the law in his day: "A party cannot be called upon to criminate himself. It used to be said a party could not be called on to discredit himself, but in modern times courts have permitted questions to show from transactions not in issue that the witnesses are of impeached character, and therefore not so credible." So that it would seem that, though the older authorities were against the practice, (1 Phil. Ev. 289, 294,) yet the current of authority soon changed in England and America. Indeed, in his Digest of the Law of Evidence, (article 129,) Sir James Stephens states the rules of cross-examination as follows: "When a witness is cross-examined, he may be asked any question which tends (1) to test his accuracy, veracity, or credibility; or (2) to shake his credit by injuring his character. He may be compelled to answer any such question, however irrelevant to the facts in issue, and however disgraceful the answer may be to himself, except where the answer might expose him to a criminal charge." Willson, Crim. St. § 2511.

This character of cross-examination is permitted upon the theory that, where a man's life or liberty depends upon the testimony of another, it is of the highest importance that they whom the law makes the exclusive judges of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses should know how far the witness is to be trusted. They ought to know his surroundings and status, so as not to give to one belonging to the criminal class the same credit as he whose character is irreproachable. If, therefore, it should appear on cross-examination that the witness had a previous criminal experience, or spent a part of his life in jail, (Real v. People, 42 N. Y. 270; Thomp. Trials, 458; Greenl. Ev. 455,) or was convicted, or has suffered some infamous punishment, or had been in jail on a criminal charge, (1 Best, Ev. 130,) it would tend to shake or impair his credit, and the jury should have such information. While it may seem harsh to compel a witness to commit perjury, or destroy his own standing before the court, it would seem absurd to place the feelings of a profligate witness in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Wallace v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1899
    ... ... suppress all inquiry into matters not relevant to credit, and ... should not permit a disparaging course of examination, which ... seems unjust to the witnesses, and uncalled for by the ... circumstances of the particular case. Road Co. v ... Loomis, 32 N.Y. 127; Carroll v. State, 32 Tex ... Cr. R. 431, 24 S.W. 100. Tested by these rules, we cannot say ... [41 Fla. 577] that the court abused its discretion in ... permitting the questions stated. They were framed so that an ... affirmative answer would secure an admission of the conduct ... inquired about ... ...
  • State v. Kent
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1896
    ... ... defendants credibility, as a witness. The inquiry should have ... been confined to transactions comparatively recent, bearing ... directly upon the present character of the witness. Greenleaf ... Ev. § 459; Whart. Cr. Ev. § 472; Carroll v ... State, 24 S.W. 100; Holder v. State, 25 S.W ... 279; Turner v. King, 32 S.W. 941. A defendant cannot ... be asked if he has been indicted for the purpose of ... impeaching him. Van Bokkelen v. Berdell, 130 N.Y. 141; ... Peo. v. Crapo, 76 N.Y. 291; Peo. v. Irving, ... 95 N.Y ... ...
  • State v. Mackey
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1915
    ... ... Brown, 72 N.Y. 571, 28 Am. Rep. 183; Gifford v ... People, 87 Ill. 210; Hayward v. People, 96 Ill ... 492; Rice, Crim. Ev. 215; State v. Apley, 25 N.D ... 298, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 269, 141 N.W. 740; Richardson v ... Gage, 28 S.D. 390, 133 N.W. 692, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 534; ... Carroll v. State, 32 Tex. Crim. Rep. 431, 40 Am. St ... Rep. 786, 24 S.W. 100; Owens v. State, 39 Tex. Crim ... Rep. 391, 46 S.W. 240; Ball v. State, 44 Tex. Crim ... Rep. 489, 72 S.W. 384; Dabney v. State, 82 Miss ... 252, 33 So. 973; State v. Kent (State v. Pancoast) 5 ... N.D. 516, 35 ... ...
  • Bustillos v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 17, 1971
    ...that he was charged by complaint, information or indictment with a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. See Carroll v. State, 32 Tex.Cr.R. 431, 24 S.W. 100; Chandler, 'Attacking Credibility of Witnesses By Proof Of Charge Or Conviction Of Crime,' 10 Tex.Law Rev. 257. See also 16......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT