Hines v. State

• Citation: 39 S.W. 935
• Parties: HINES v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 24 March 1897
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

39 S.W. 935

HINES v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 24, 1897.

Appeal from Dallas county court; T. F. Nash, Judge.

Bob Hines was convicted of violating the local option law, and appeals. Reversed.

Thomas & Turney, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law in the town of Lancaster, in Dallas county; hence this appeal.

The indictment charges appellant with having sold intoxicating liquors to one Gus Lindsey. On the trial, the state introduced one T. J. Watts, who testified that he gave Gus Lindsey 25 cents in silver, with which to purchase whisky; that Lindsey took the money, and went into a butcher's shop, where appellant was employed; that he went into an adjoining establishment, and from his position saw Lindsey purchase the whisky from appellant with the 25 cents, and that Lindsey subsequently brought him (Watts) the whisky. This was the testimony introduced by the state with reference to the sale of the whisky. The defendant placed on the stand as a witness the alleged purchaser, Lindsey, who denied in toto Watts' entire statement, swearing positively that Watts did not furnish him with any money with which to buy whisky, and that he (Lindsey) did not purchase of appellant any whisky at any time "during his life." For the purpose of impeaching Lindsey, the state introduced Holland, a member of the grand jury in session at the time of this trial, and asked him "whether Gus Lindsey had just been before the grand jury, and there testified that, if he were connected with or had any friend involved in any violations of law, he would not give it away." To this appellant objected. The court overruled the objection, and required the witness to answer that "Lindsey had just been before the grand jury, and there testified that he would not give away a friend in legal trouble, or to that effect." By another bill of exceptions it is also shown that while Lindsey was on the stand as a witness he had been questioned with reference to this matter, and stated in reply that he said to the grand jury "that he would not criminate himself, but that he did not remember making the statement asked about and as testified to by Holland." Article 404 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth the oath administered to grand jurors, which requires them to keep secret all the proceedings had before them, unless the grand jurors are "required to disclose the same in the course of a judicial proceeding in which the truth or falsity of evidence given in the grand-jury room in a criminal case shall be under investigation." Article 213 of the Penal Code prescribes the punishment for grand jurors and witnesses who divulge the secrets of the grand jury, "unless such persons are required to testify to any of the matters before said grand jury in a judicial tribunal." It has been held in this state, since the case of Clanton v. State, 13 Tex. App. 139, that, whenever it is necessary to the due administration of justice, a witness may be attacked by showing he made statements before the grand jury different from those testified on the trial of the case. There is an unbroken line of decisions in this state, beginning with said Clanton's Case, supra, affirming this doctrine; but an inspection of those cases will show that this character of testimony was...