Gaskin v. State

Decision Date13 December 1961
Docket NumberNo. 33909,33909
Citation172 Tex.Crim. 7,353 S.W.2d 467
PartiesFlemin GASKIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Clyde W. Woody, Houston, for appellant.

Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., Thomas C. Dunn, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is possession of marijuana; the punishment, two years.

In view of our disposition of this case, a recitation of the facts will not be necessary other than to state that bill of exception No. 1 recites the following facts: Each of the arresting officers testified that contemporaneously with the arrest they had prepared a complete report of the transaction in question. The arrest was shown to have occurred some two years prior to the trial. The officers testified that before coming to court they had read the report and were in fact testifying from their refreshed memory. After each of the officers had testified, appellant made a request upon the prosecutor to produce such report for the purpose of cross-examining the officers. The prosecutor admitted that he had such report in his possession, but the court [172 TEXCRIM 8] refused to order him to deliver the same to appellant's counsel for the purpose stated, to which appellant objected.

Thereafter, at the hearing on the motion for new trial, appellant again made demand upon the prosecution for production of said report for the purpose of perfecting his bill of exception, but, even though it was stipulated that the prosecutor had said report in his possession, the court declined to order him to produce the same.

In the recent case of Moreno v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 341 S.W.2d 455, 457, in explaining our prior holding in Wiley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 332 S.W.2d 725, we said:

'Our holding was that such statements should have been made available for the record for the purpose of showing injury, if there was injury.'

For the error of the court in failing to permit appellant to perfect his bill so that he might show injury, if any occurred, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

ON STATE'S MOTION FOR REHEARING

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

We disclaim any intent to adopt the Jencks decision (Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103) or the so-called Jencks Act (18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3500) as a rule of procedure in this state.

We are not here dealing with grand jury testimony, or with a confession of the defendant, but with a previous statement shown by the evidence to have been made by a witness who has testified for the state, which statement was available and inspection was requested for the purpose of cross-examination and possible use for impeachment purposes.

We agree with counsel for the state that under the decisions the defendant has an absolute right to have such a statement only where it has been used in some way before the jury by which its contents became an issue, such as used by the witness in testifying to refresh his memory, or exhibited or read from or used to question the witness in the jury's presence. Jackson v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 348, 314 S.W.2d 97; Green v. State, 53 Tex.Cr.R. 490, 110 S.W. 920, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 706; Palacio v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R.[172 TEXCRIM 9] 460, 301 S.W.2d 166; Board v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 487, 56 S.W.2d 464.

We agree that the facts here do not bring the case before us within said rule, the witness having testified that he refreshed his memory from it before he came to testify, and there being no evidence that he used it in testifying or that it was exhibited or used in the jury's presence.

From the decisions, it appears that the rule we have applied is in effect the same as that in the Federal Court stated and applied in Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 62 S.Ct. 993, 86 L.Ed. 1322, long before the Jencks case was tried, namely, the trial judge...

To continue reading

Request your trial
113 cases
  • Balderas v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • November 2, 2016
    ...the negative. Point of error five is overruled.GASKIN RULE VIOLATIONIn point of error six, Balderas asserts that the trial court violated the Gaskin84 Rule by improperly denying him the opportunity to impeach Wendy with her prior audio recorded statement to police. Balderas misunderstands t......
  • Rogers v. State, 69598
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • May 3, 1989
    ...(contemporary explanation of judicially-created rule for the disclosure of testifying witness's prior statements); Gaskin v. State, 172 Tex.Crim. 7, 353 S.W.2d 467 (1961). We do not reach this question, however, because appellant has failed properly to perfect it for our review. Refusal to ......
  • State v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • January 7, 1966
    ...v. State, 236 Md. 597, 204 A.2d 678; State v. Aubuchon (Mo.) 381 S.W.2d 807; Erving v. State, 174 Neb. 90, 116 N.W.2d 7; Gaskin v. State, 172 Tex.Cr. 7, 353 S.W.2d 467; State v. Robinson, 61 Wash.2d 107, 377 P.2d 248. The other two states apparently rejecting the Jencks rule also base their......
  • State v. Page
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • July 17, 1968
    ...v. State, 236 Md. 597, 204 A.2d 678; State v. Aubuchon, Mo., 381 S.W.2d 807; Erving v. State, 174 Neb. 90, 116 N.W.2d 7; Gaskin v. State, 172 Tex.Cr. 7, 353 S.W.2d 467; State v.Robinson, 61 Wash.2d 107, 377 P.2d 248; State v. Kelly, 249 Iowa 1219, 91 N.W.2d 562; Anderson v. State, 207 Tenn.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2015 Contents
    • August 17, 2015
    ...1992, pet. ref’d ), §17:24.2 Garza v. State, 974 S.W.2d 251 (Tex.App.—San Antonio, pet. ref’d ), §§12:54.1, 12:55.7 Gaskin v. State, 353 S.W.2d 467 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961), §15:57.4 Gassaway v. State, 957 S.W.2d 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), §§6:21.1, 6:22 Gauldin v. State, 683 S.W.2d 411 (Tex.......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • August 17, 2014
    ...1992, pet. ref’d ), §17:24.2 Garza v. State, 974 S.W.2d 251 (Tex.App.—San Antonio, pet. ref’d ), §§12:54.1, 12:55.7 Gaskin v. State, 353 S.W.2d 467 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961), §15:57.4 Gassaway v. State, 957 S.W.2d 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), §§6:21.1, 6:22 Gauldin v. State, 683 S.W.2d 411 (Tex.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT