Guajardo v. State
| Decision Date | 01 February 1888 |
| Citation | 7 S.W. 331 |
| Parties | GUAJARDO v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Nueces county; J. C. RUSSELL, Judge.
Appeal by Nicolas Guajardo from a conviction for theft of horses taken from the owner's inclosure in the night-time, and afterwards found in defendant's possession. No one saw the taking.
Waul & Walker, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
This appeal is from a conviction for theft of a horse, and the case is submitted by the assistant attorney general on confession of error. Over objection of appellant, the state proved that he (appellant) had lived in the penitentiary as a convict for the last four or five years. This fact being elicited by a question not necessarily calling for such an answer, counsel for appellant also moved the court to exclude this matter from the consideration of the jury, and, the court refusing, an exception was reserved. We will not discuss the competency of such supposed evidence. The action of the court in admitting and refusing to exclude this matter from the jury, was simply, whether intended or not, an outrage upon the rights of the accused. It may be contended that, as no reason or ground of objection was stated by counsel for appellant, defendant cannot complain of the ruling of the court. The rule upon this subject is that if the evidence is obviously competent and admissible as tending to prove any of the facts put in issue by the pleadings, then, a reason should be assigned for objecting to it. Dist. Ct. Rules, No. 57. That appellant had lived as a convict in the penitentiary for the last four or five years was not competent and admissible evidence to prove, or tend to prove, any issue raised in this case, hence no ground of objection to its admissibility was required.
This is a case depending alone for conviction upon circumstantial evidence. The rules applicable to such a case should be given in charge to the jury. This was not done, which was error. For the errors above noticed, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moore
... ... to the fact of a larceny having been committed, is wholly ... circumstantial, and hence, the court should have instructed ... the jury, as to their duty in considering circumstantial ... evidence. Thompson on Trials, secs. 2508-2518; Fuller v ... State, 7 S.W. 330; Guajardo v. State, 7 S.W ... 331; Bond v. State, 4 S.W. 580; Schuler v ... State, 4 S.W. 581. (10) The evidence is not sufficient ... to sustain the verdict. Taylor v. State, 18 Tex.App ... 489; McIntosh v. State, 18 Tex.App. 284; Williams v ... State, 5 S.W. 129 ... ...
- State v. Overson
-
Kline v. State
...is obviously hurtful and inadmissible for any purpose, citing Bell v. State, 2 Tex. App. 220, 28 Am. Rep. 429; Guajardo v. State, 24 Tex. Cr. App. 605, 7 S. W. 331; Brown v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 269, 122 S. W. 565; Tyson v. State, 14 Tex. App. 391. Objection to evidence admitted, that it w......
-
Farar v. State
...Among them are Thompson v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 340, 42 S. W. 974; Felsenthal v. State, 30 Tex. App. 676, 18 S. W. 644; Guajardo v. State, 24 Tex. App. 605, 7 S. W. 331. So far as we are aware, there has been no departure from the rule. In the recent case of Childress v. State, 92 Tex. Cr.......