House v. State
| Decision Date | 13 June 1900 |
| Parties | HOUSE v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Dallas county; Charles F. Clint, Judge.
Abe House was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed.
Stillwell H. Russell, W. S. Lemmon, and A. J. Hudson, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for life.
Ellis House, owner of defendant when a slave, testified that the general reputation of appellant in the community in which he lived was good for peace and quietude; that he was a law-abiding citizen, and that his reputation was good as well for truth and veracity. Defendant failed to testify in his own behalf, whereupon the county attorney moved to exclude the evidence of the witness in regard to his character for truth and veracity. The court not only excluded this phase of the testimony, but also that which related to peace and quietude. As a reason for admitting the testimony as to veracity, the court informed the jury that he expected testimony would be offered which would make said evidence pertinent; but, this not having been done, the evidence of the witness was excluded from their consideration, "and it was all put out"; not only that with reference to truth and veracity, but also as to character for "peace and quiet." Exception was reserved to this action of the court. It is not necessary to discuss the ruling of the court with reference to the exclusion of the testimony in regard to appellant's character for truth and veracity. In criminal cases, wherever a criminal intent is the essence of the offense, evidence of general good character of the accused as a law-abiding citizen is relevant, and therefore admissible in his behalf, and is to be considered by the jury as any other evidence in determining whether or not his guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. This character of testimony is always admissible in his behalf whether the evidence leaves the case in doubt or not. Of course, this can only be put in issue by defendant. For collation of authorities, see White's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. § 1092, subds. 2, 3. The court's action was clearly error. Why this testimony was excluded is not explained by the bill, if in fact it could be explained.
This case depended upon circumstantial evidence. One of the strongest facts relied upon by the prosecution was the finding of what the witnesses thought to be blood on one of the barrels of a shotgun. The theory of the prosecution was that this gun was used as a bludgeon in the perpetration of the homicide. Some hair was connected with this blood. The case was tried several times, resulting each time in a hung jury, until the last trial. This "blood and hair" theory was the subject of investigation upon each. The testimony grew stronger at each...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Davis
... ... seeking to take advantage of the witnesses and was ... transgressing the law, thereby prejudicing the minds of the ... jury against defendant's counsel and defendant. 38 Cyc ... 1322; 21 Encyc. of Pl. & Pr., 1000; Walker v ... Coleman, 55 Kan. 381; House v. State, 57 S.W ... 825; Hine v. Ry. Co., 115 Mich. 204; Wheeler v ... Wallace, 53 Mich. 355 ... Frank ... W. McAllister, Attorney-General, George V. Berry, Assistant ... Attorney-General, for respondent ... (1) The ... questions of counsel for State ... ...
-
State v. Deslovers
...making remarks of this kind, and their effect upon the prisoner's case could not have been otherwise than harmful." In Re Abe House v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 125, 57 S. W. 825, it was held that the court should not indulge in reflections upon counsel when passing upon questions of evidence, ......
-
Reed v. State
...knowledge or criminal intention is of the essence of the offense" — citing Poyner v. State (Cr. App.) 48 S. W. 516; House v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 128, 57 S. W. 825; Jones v. State, 10 Tex. App. 558; Coffey v. State, 1 Tex. App. 548; Lincecum v. State, 29 Tex. App. 332, 15 S. W. 818, 25 Am.......
-
Tuttle v. State
...tended to impair his standing and influence with the jury, to the prejudice of his client's interests. 90 S.W. 933; 22 Am. St. Rep. 673; 57 S.W. 825 F. Kirby, Attorney General, and Daniel Taylor, assistant for appellee. OPINION HILL, C. J. Tuttle was indicted and convicted of the crime of a......