Dyer v. State
| Decision Date | 25 November 1903 |
| Citation | 77 S.W. 456 |
| Parties | DYER v. STATE.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; J. K. P. Gillaspie, Judge.
Jake Dyer was convicted of burglary, and appeals. Reversed.
C. E. and A. E. Heldingsfelder, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. V. Lea, Dist. Atty., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of burglary, the penalty assessed being two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
Exception was reserved to the following portion of the court's charge, to wit: "If you should find that the house mentioned in the indictment was broken, and certain chickens were taken therefrom, and the same had been recently stolen, and that they were found in the possession of the defendant, and that when he was first challenged concerning his possession he gave an explanation thereof which was reasonable and probably true and accounted for defendant's possession in a manner consistent with his innocence, then it devolves upon the state to show the falsity of said explanation; and, unless you so find from the evidence, then find the defendant not guilty." This charge is upon the weight of evidence, as insisted by appellant, and is almost a literal copy of the one condemned by this court in Wheeler v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 350, 30 S. W. 913.
Appellant also insists that the court erred in charging the jury that they could consider the fact that appellant had been convicted 20 years ago of assault with intent to murder, for the purpose of affecting his credibility as a witness. There is no bill of exceptions reserved to the admission of such evidence. However, in view of another trial, we would suggest that this testimony, being so remote, should not be admitted. It is proper and germane to prove crimes recently committed by appellant for the purpose of affecting his credibility as a witness, but public policy demands that offense committed long years prior to the trial should not be admitted in evidence. However, we note that the record shows defendant himself introduced this testimony, but we are at a loss to understand on what theory he did so. Be his reasons what they may, it is not proper for the court to charge the jury on such testimony. Bowers v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 71 S. W. 285.
For the error discussed, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
* Rehearing denied December 16, 1903.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooper v. State
... ... reasonable relation to the time at which the testimony is ... given, and that the period of 15 years is too remote ... See, ... also, Bowers v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 71 S.W. 284; ... State v. Houx, 109 Mo. 654, 19 S.W. 35, 32 Am. St ... Rep. 686; Dyer v. State, (Tex. Cr. App.) 77 S.W ... It is ... not insisted that evidence as to the management by the ... accused of his office of clerk and master reflected upon the ... issue in this case. Its competency was placed on the ground ... that it tended to impeach his character ... ...
-
Cooper v. State
...*" See, also, Bowers v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 71 S. W. 284; State v. Houx, 109 Mo. 654, 19 S. W. 35, 32 Am. St. Rep. 686; Dyer v. State, (Tex. Cr. App.) 77 S. W. 456. It is not insisted that evidence as to the management by the accused of his office of clerk and master reflected upon the is......
-
Ballew v. State, 19981.
...this accentuated the error in the admission thereof. See Bogus v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 126, 114 S.W. 823, 131 Am.St.Rep. 804; Dyer v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 77 S.W. 456. Appellant, by bill of exception No. 2, objected to the admission of testimony regarding the search of his premises and what w......
- Sapp v. State