Gant v. State, 47654
| Decision Date | 10 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47654,47654 |
| Citation | 513 S.W.2d 52 |
| Parties | Edgar Cherry GANT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Victor R. Blaine, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Phyllis Bell, & Bob Bennett, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The appellant was convicted of the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property. His punishment was assessed by the jury at eight years' imprisonment.
Our disposition of appellant's last ground of error renders a discussion of his other contentions unnecessary. In that ground of error the appellant urges that the trial court erred in admitting, over his objection, the testimony of a police officer as to the character of certain of appellant's associates. We agree.
The statement of facts reflects that the officer testified that he was assigned to the burglary and theft division, and had been to appellant's place of business on several occasions. He was then asked:
'Q During any of the occasions that you've been there, have you seen persons known to you to have been handled by your department or other law enforcement agencies for theft or burglary?'
At this point objection was interposed and overruled. The witness answered:
'Q Have you seen them in the garage or warehouse portion of the 223 Harbor Street property?
'A Yes, sir.
'Q Have you seen them in the actual lounge part, the bar part?
'A Yes, sir.
'Q Have you ever seen any of them in the living quarters?
'A Yes sir.'
The State argues that '. . . (A)ppellants association with and habit of doing business with known thieves would clearly go to show that he possessed with guilty knowledge rather than innocently . . .', and that this was circumstantial evidence showing an overall scheme or design.
The appellant argues, correctly, that this evidence was irrelevant, having no connection with the charges against him.
It is clear that one's character is no evidence of guilt. It should be even more obvious that the character of one's associates is no evidence of guilt, and we have held that such evidence should not be admitted. See Harrell v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 141, 218 S.W.2d 466 (1949). Indeed, it has been held that one may not even be impeached by the character of his associates. See Holsey v. State, 24 Tex.App. 35, 5 S.W. 523 (1887).
This evidence was clearly calculated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paulus v. State
...over objection that appellant was not on trial for what her husband may have been during his lifetime. Appellant cited Gant v. State, 513 S.W.2d 52, 53 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). One may not be impeached by the character of her on his associates. Gant v. State, supra; Koller v. State, 518 S.W.2d 37......
-
Carrillo v. State
...the character of a defendant's associates is no evidence of his guilt. Koller v. State, 518 S.W.2d 373 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Gant v. State, 513 S.W.2d 52 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). However, the error in asking an improper question generally may be cured or rendered harmless by the withdrawal of the qu......
-
Adams v. State
...a known fence is not sufficient to prove appellant's guilty knowledge. See Walker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 539 S.W.2d 894; Gant v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 513 S.W.2d 52. Unlike Callahan v. State, supra, the record shows this is an obviously weak circumstantial case. In Ysasaga v. State, Tex.Cr.Ap......
-
Perkins v. State
...S.W.2d at 271 n. 17.9 In arguing that it is improper to admit this evidence under Rule 403, Appellant also relies upon Gant v. State, 513 S.W.2d 52 (Tex.Crim.App.1974). Gant held that evidence showing the character of the defendant's associates is not relevant to the issue of guilt. Because......