Gibson v. State
| Decision Date | 17 December 1890 |
| Parties | GIBSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On rehearing. No former report, the opinion on original hearing being oral. Appeal from district court, Falls county; L. W. GOODRICH, Judge.
Simmons & Crawford, for appellant. W. L. Davidson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
In our first consideration of this case we were unaided by brief or argument in behalf of appellant, the briefs of his counsel not having been received and filed until after we had affirmed the judgment of conviction. Having considered the case on this motion, aided by briefs of counsel, we find that errors were committed in the trial court, which demand that the conviction be set aside, which errors escaped our observation until specially called to our attention on this motion.
The first error referred to consists in the admission in evidence, over defendant's objection, of the judgment rendered and entered in the cause of State v. R. A. Jones, No. 2574, of date August 16, 1889. This judgment was not the judgment rendered and entered on the trial in which the alleged perjury was committed; the trial in which the perjury was alleged to have been committed having occurred on August 8. 1889. This judgment was irrelevant, and could have no legitimate bearing upon any issue in the case. The trial judge states that he admitted it for the purpose of showing the pendency of the prosecution in the Jones Case at the time the perjury was alleged to have been committed, and that said prosecution had since terminated. It was not admissible for either purpose. It did not show the pendency of the prosecution at the time the perjury was alleged to have been committed. That fact was otherwise and sufficiently shown. It was immaterial whether said prosecution had terminated after the commission of the perjury, or whether it was still pending and undetermined. We can conceive of no purpose for which said judgment was admissible evidence in this case, and it could have been offered only for the improper purpose of injuring the rights of the defendant, which, in our judgment, it was calculated to do. By that judgment it is made to appear that Jones pleaded guilty to the charge of the theft a bull, which was a judicial confession by Jones that when the bull was stolen he was not in Robertson county at defendant's house. It was strong evidence against the defendant as to the falsity of his statement that at the time the bull was stolen Jones was not in Falls...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Staples v. McKnight, 05-88-00184-CV
...to the effect of his conduct or if the evidence established that the opinion he professed was against all reason. See Gibson v. State, 15 S.W. 118, 119 (Tex.Ct.App.1890). Staples' denial cannot be deemed to be untruthful merely because some of the underlying facts suggest that his opinion w......
- Mason v. State
-
Mathes v. State
...419; Nelson v. State, 32 Ark. 192; State v. Higgins, 124 Mo. 640, 28 S.W. 178; Commonwealth v. Brady, 71 Mass. (5 Gray) 78; Gibson v. State (Tex. App.) 15 S.W. 118, all which hold, in substance, that one can be convicted of perjury only when the false testimony was given corruptly with know......
-
Pilgrim v. State
... ... State, 41 Ala. 419; Nelson v. State, 32 Ark ... 192; State v. Higgins, 124 Mo. 640, 28 S.W. 178; ... United States v. Smith, F. Cas. No. 16,341; ... United States v. Shellmire, F. Cas. No. 16,271; ... Commonwealth v. Brady, 71 Mass. 78; Gibson v ... State (Tex. App.) 15 S.W. 118--all of which hold in ... substance that one can be convicted of perjury only where the ... false testimony was given corruptly, with knowledge of its ... falsity, and that it is not enough that the defendant in a ... perjury prosecution testified ... ...