Jennings v. State
| Decision Date | 20 January 1909 |
| Citation | 115 S.W. 587 |
| Parties | JENNINGS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Grayson County Court; J. W. Hassell, Judge.
George Jennings appeals from a conviction. Reversed and remanded.
F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant appeals from a conviction obtained in the county court of Grayson county on a charge of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in violation of the local option law.
Appellant became a witness on the trial in his own behalf, and in the course of his direct examination testified that he had never at any time sold any intoxicating liquor to R. O. Parish or any one else, whereupon, on cross-examination, he was asked by counsel for the state the following question: "Have you not been before convicted of violating the local option law in this very court?" To which question, and the answer sought to be adduced thereby, appellant objected by his counsel for the following reasons: That such question and answer are immaterial and irrelevant, are hearsay, and calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury against him, and that the record is the best evidence; and in connection with the objection the bill recites that his counsel offered to the court, aside from the jury, the record, which shows that, if the defendant was ever convicted, the conviction is appealed from and is not final, and that defendant for that reason has never been convicted. These objections were by the court overruled, and appellant was forced to testify that he had been convicted by a jury in the county court on a former trial. We think this action of the court was erroneous, and on account of the admission of this testimony the judgment of conviction must be reversed.
It should be stated, however, that there is in the decisions of this tribunal some basis and support for the action of the trial court. In the case of Levine v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 647, 34 S. W. 969, a question very similar to the one here presented was before the court. It there appears that the county attorney was permitted to ask Levine: "How many times have you been convicted for violating the liquor and Sunday law?" And in passing upon the admissibility of this testimony the court say: In the case of Dickey v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 56 S. W. 627, it was held that it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Crawford
... ... conviction." The court overruled the objection and ... defendant answered that he had recently been convicted of ... burglary. According to some decisions, it is improper to ... cross-examine as to a conviction from which an appeal is ... pending. Jennings v. State, 55 Tex. Crim ... 147, 115 S.W. 587. Counsel also cites Vinsant v ... Vinsant, 49 Iowa 639, and Rivers v ... Rivers, 60 Iowa 378, 14 N.W. 774, but in ... Hackett v. Freeman, 103 Iowa 296, 72 N.W ... 528, it was held that the rule laid down in those cases does ... not apply in ... ...
-
Jennings v. State
...S. W. 280; Kirksey v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 298, 135 S. W. 124; Hightower v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 109, 131 S. W. 324; Jennings v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 147, 115 S. W. 587; Marks v. State, 78 S. W. 512; Lee v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 51, 73 S. W. 407; Stewart v. State, 38 S. W. 1144; Tyrrell ......
-
Houston v. Millennium Insurance Agency, Inc., No. 13-03-00235-CV (TX 4/20/2006)
...its admission in the first place. See Ringer v. State, 129 S.W.2d 654, 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 1939) (quoting Jennings v. State, 115 S.W. 587, 588 (Tex. Crim. App. 1909)). We reject appellees' attempt to parse the contempt proceedings and circumvent the ultimate disposition of the contempt jud......
-
Cox v. State
...Crowell v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 480, 120 S. W. 897. On the erroneous ruling of the court admitting the testimony, see Jennings v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 147, 115 S. W. 587, and Goad v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 444, 108 S. W. 680. Other cases might be cited, but these are Believing we were in e......