Driehs v. State, 28900
| Decision Date | 03 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 28900,28900 |
| Citation | 164 Tex.Crim. 455,301 S.W.2d 123 |
| Parties | Fredrick Ownes DRIEHS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Baldwin & Goodwin, Beaumont, for appellant.
Ramie H. Griffin, Dist. Atty., James S. McGrath, Asst. Dist. Atty., Beaumont, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is driving while intoxicated as a second offender under Article 802b, Vernon's Ann.P.C.; the punishment, 120 days in jail and a fine of $300.
In view of our disposition of this case, a recitation of the facts will not be deemed necessary other than to observe that there was considerable testimony from the officers that the appellant resisted the arrest. The appellant testified that he was not intoxicated and that the officers beat him unmercifully after their arrival at the jail. He was cross-examined, over his objection, about whether or not he had resisted arrest when taken into custody for the prior misdemeanor allege in the indictment. When he denied the same, the arresting officer in the first case was called and testified, over objection, about the difficulty he had in subduing the appellant on the first occasion.
In permitting such cross-examination and admitting such evidence, the trial court was in error.
It was incumbent upon the State to prove the conviction for the prior misdemeanor offense, but the details thereof are not admissible. Cawthon v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 86, 24 S.W.2d 435.
The State contends that such evidence was admissible as impeachment. In order to agree with such contention, it would be necessary to hold that the details of the prior offense were material in the present trial. We do not so conclude. The general rule is expressed in Branch's Ann.P.C., 2nd Ed., Vol. 1, sec. 187, p. 199, as follows:
'Impeaching a material witness on an immaterial matter is reversible error, because, by discrediting the witness and showing the jury that upon an immaterial issue he had testified falsely, it is calculated to make the jury believe that he may have testified falsely in regard to other matters, which were material.'
For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. State, 68934
...have been probative of bias or motive to testify falsely. See Murphy v. State, 587 S.W.2d 718 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Driehs v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 455, 301 S.W.2d 123 (App.1957). The appellant also contended, however, that the excluded testimony was admissible on the basis that it was "similar......
-
Murphy v. State
...witness has been finally convicted of a criminal offense, the Details of that offense are inadmissible. See, e. g., Driehs v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 455, 301 S.W.2d 123 (1957). In limited circumstances, proof of the fact that charges have been filed against a witness may become admissible upo......
-
Bruner v. State, 48527
...Cf. Lege v. State, 501 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Cain v. State, 468 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Driehs v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 455, 301 S.W.2d 123 (Tex.Cr.App.1957). We overrule this ground of The judgment is affirmed. Opinion approved by the Court. 1 We note, however, that the grand ......
-
Harrison v. State
...was on trial and on the complainant's credibility concerning them. Authorities supporting the State include Driehs v. State, 301 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex.Crim.App.1957) and Speck v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 443, 188 S.W.2d 184, 185 (1945), both of which were reversed because the State was wrongly p......