Ford v. State

• Citation: 50 S.W. 350
• Parties: FORD v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 01 March 1899
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

50 S.W. 350

FORD v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 1, 1899.

Appeal from district court, McLennan county; Sam R. Scott, Judge.

Walter Ford was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

H. P. Jordan, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment assessed at death; hence this appeal.

Appellant objected to the district attorney, while cross-examining the defendant, who had taken the stand, and been examined in his own behalf,. using a memorandum or written statement of said witness in his cross-examination. Said memorandum appeared to have been a statement made by said defendant to the sheriff, after his arrest, and after he had been warned. The grounds of objection to the same were that it was not a sworn statement, and was made while defendant was in great excitement, his reason dethroned, and without the benefit of counsel, or warning by officers, etc. The court, in certifying to this bill, states that there was no evidence that defendant was excited, but, on the contrary, the statement made by him, and from which the district attorney read, was a voluntary statement made by defendant to the sheriff, etc. We do not understand any objection to be here urged to the introduction of said statement in evidence, but merely to the use of it by the county attorney in the cross-examination of said witness. We know of no rule which would exclude the use of said memorandum under the circumstances.

As explained by the court there was no error in the action of the state's attorney in reading from the criminal reports to the court in the presence of the jury. The cases, or the contents thereof, are not stated, so that it is impossible for us to determine whether or not, under any circumstances, the reading of said reports was of an injurious character.

Appellant objected to the witnesses John Brown, Cosmos Riley, and Ed Williams being permitted to state on their cross-examination by the state that, in their opinion, appellant knew right from wrong. The ground of objection stated to this testimony was to the effect that said witnesses had never qualified to give opinions, and that said testimony was prejudicial to the rights of the defendant. As explained by the court, these witnesses were introduced by appellant to testify as to his insanity, and in their direct examination they testified as to acts and conduct of appellant within their knowledge, upon which they based their opinions. Their examination by the state was the exercise of legitimate cross-examination.

Appellant objected to the exclusion by the court of certain testimony. The bill is as follows: "Be it remembered that on the trial of the above styled and numbered cause the defendant offered to prove by three witnesses, to wit, Jim Scott, Bill Redding, and Elvin Powell, that on the date upon which he shot the deceased, Lucinda Moore, and within ten minutes after said shooting was done, and within five hundred yards of the scene of the shooting, he made the following statement: That the defendant went to Lucinda Moore's house for the purpose of getting some of his own things, which he had previously left in her possession. While there, and requesting the delivery of said articles, the deceased and the defendant quarreled, whereupon the deceased cut with a razor the coat sleeves and shoulder of the coat which the defendant was then wearing, which made the defendant mad, and that he shot her, in order to keep her from killing...