Carter v. State
| Decision Date | 11 June 1887 |
| Citation | 5 S.W. 128 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CARTER v. STATE.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
The state proved that Cummings' bay pony and roan mare were stolen from his lot in the town of Caldwell, Burleson county, Texas, on the night of January 19, 1887. The bay pony was traced to the possession of defendant, at the house of Maria Williams, in Brenham, Washington county, on the morning of January 20, 1887. Three weeks later, officers went to the house of Maria Williams to arrest one Albert Lindsey. When they approached the house, the defendant, for whom they had no warrant, and whom they had no purpose to arrest, undertook to flee from the house, and, after a struggle, was arrested by the officers on suspicion. The subsequent discovery of the Cummings bay pony on the premises of the said Maria Williams, led to his indictment for the larceny of the same, and, upon proof of the above facts, he was convicted. Several witnesses for the defense delivered testimony establishing a perfect alibi for the defendant, but they were discredited by the jury.
Bassett, Muse & Muse, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
Over objections of defendant, the state was permitted to prove by two witnesses that they saw defendant in Brenham on the night of January 31, 1887, and that on that night a horse was stolen in Brenham from one of said witnesses. This testimony was offered and admitted as rebutting testimony, and was objected to by defendant, (1) because the same was irrelevant and impertinent; (2) because the defendant's whereabouts on January 31, 1887, was not an issue in the case; (3) defendant was not on trial for theft of the horse said to have been stolen on that night from Becker, one of said witnesses, and said evidence was calculated to prejudice the defendant, etc. These objections to said testimony, we think, should have been sustained. We cannot perceive that it was relevant, even in a remote degree, to any issue in the case, and it was not in rebuttal of any evidence introduced by the defendant. The theft for which the defendant was on trial was committed on the night of January 19, 1887, in Burleson county, and the defendant, having the stolen horse in his possession, was in Brenham, Washington county, on January 20, 1887, at the house of Maria Williams, where said horse was found and recovered February 4, 1887, by the officers of Washington county. The fact that defendant was in Brenham on the night of January 31, 1887, throws no light whatever upon the transaction, either as to the original taking of the horse in Burleson county, or the removal to and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dudley v. State
...circumstance tending to establish his guilt." The opinion did not further discuss the holding, but cited three cases, Carter v. State, 23 Tex.App. 508, 5 S.W. 128 (1887); Elliott v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 285, 213 S.W.2d 833 (1948); Sharp v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 96, 217 S.W.2d 1017 (1949), no......
-
Bass v. State
...cannot avail itself of the silence or refusal of an accused prisoner as a circumstance tending to establish his guilt. See Carter v. State, 23 Tex.App. 508, 5 S.W. 128; Elliott v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 285, 213 S.W.2d 833; Sharp v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 96, 217 S.W.2d 243 S.W.2d at 704. Judge......
-
Murff v. State
...v. State, 3 Tex. App. 387; Grosse v. State, 11 Tex. App. 364; Neiderluck v. State, 21 Tex. App. 320, 17 S. W. 467; and Carter v. State, 23 Tex. App. 508, 5 S. W. 128. Other cases might be cited, but it is thought to be unnecessary. The question here raised was not solved by the decision in ......
-
Beachem v. State
...directed by the officers, or had refused to speak at all, the fact of such refusal could not have been proven against him. Carter v. State, 23 Tex.App. 508, 5 S.W. 128; Stanton v. State, 94 Tex. Cr.R. 366, 252 S.W. 519; Myers v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 546, 258 S.W. 821 and cases therein cited;......