Gilson v. State, 21265.
| Decision Date | 27 November 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 21265.,21265. |
| Citation | 145 S.W.2d 182 |
| Parties | GILSON et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from County Court at Law, Cameron County; Bascom Cox, Judge.
John Gilson and Louis K. Gegalos were convicted for aggravated assault and they appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
H. B. Galbraith and H. L. Yates, both of Brownsville, for appellants.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
A fine of five hundred dollars each was assessed against the appellants upon a conviction for aggravated assault.
Two women gave testimony which, if accepted by the jury would have entitled appellants to an acquittal. It is shown that there was nothing in the testimony adduced upon the trial or in the demeanor or appearance of these women indicating that they were women of ill-fame. In their motion for new trial, appellants alleged that the jury, after retiring to deliberate upon the case, received other testimony. The specific complaint was that, before the verdict was reached, one of the jurors stated, in the presence and hearing of the other jurors, that the women to whom we have referred were whores. According to the testimony heard upon the motion for new trial, it was uncontroverted that one of the jurors, in referring to the women in question, said to the other jurors: "Well, John's (referring to appellant Gilson) lined up two of his whores to testify for him." Again, according to the testimony, the juror, in referring to the women, made this statement: "Them whores didn't do a good job of lying."
We think the trial court fell into error in refusing to grant the motion for new trial. Information given by one of the jurors to others is new and other testimony. Holland v. State, 107 Tex. Cr.R. 582, 298 S.W. 898, and authorities cited. Where, after retiring, the jury receive other evidence damaging to the appellant, the presumption of injury obtains. Holland v. State, supra.
Upon another trial the state should not be permitted to prove that appellant Gilson had filed his application for citizenship and that over a period of nineteen years such application had been refused.
A witness who testifies that he knows the general reputation of the accused as a peaceable and law-abiding man should be permitted to testify that such general reputation in that respect is good, notwithstanding such witness states that he has never heard that reputation discussed in the community. See Henderson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 39 S.W. 116. A different rule prevails where the witness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carrillo v. State
...Mitchell v. State, 524 S.W.2d 510 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Weatherall v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 415, 264 S.W.2d 429 (1954); Gilson v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 345, 145 S.W.2d 182 (1940). Martinez testified that he had heard appellant's reputation being discussed by persons in the community, and that hi......
-
Mitchell v. State
...heard any person say that appellant's reputation in the respect mentioned was bad.' The rules were summarized in Gilson v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 345, 145 S.W.2d 182 (1940) as 'A witness who testifies that he knows the general reputation of the accused as a peaceable and law-abiding man shoul......
-
Rogers v. U.S.
...discussion may reflect a person's good reputation, it is not probative of a person's bad reputation. See Gilson v. State, 140 Tex. Crim. 345, 346, 145 S.W.2d 182, 183 (1940). 3. We note that appellant's records had not been sealed under D.C.Code § 16-2335 4. The government's ability in gene......
-
Mitchell v. State
...as heretofore stated, Sgt. Cockrell was not a fact witness. See Lansdale v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 167, 158 S.W.2d 75; Gilson v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 345, 145 S.W.2d 182; Barr v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 652, 83 S.W.2d 998; Kissinger v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 182, 70 S.W.2d 740; Earle v. State, 64 ......