Jones v. State

• Decision Date: 03 April 1929
• Docket Number: (No. 12397.)
• Citation: 17 S.W.2d 1059
• Parties: JONES v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 1059

17 S.W.2d 1059

JONES v.STATE.

(No. 12397.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 3, 1929.

Rehearing Denied June 12, 1929.

Commissioners' Decision.

Appeal from District Court, Hopkins County; Grover Sellers, Judge.

Farrence Jones was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.Affirmed.

J. E. Spence and Dial & Brim, all of Sulphur Springs, for appellant.

A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MARTIN, J.

Offense, the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year.

Witness John Ragsdale testified that he bought a pint of whisky from the appellant while in appellant's car in Sulphur Springs.Testimony of officers shows that a pint of whisky was taken from Ragsdale immediately upon his emergence from appellant's car and that appellant ran away and broke a pint of whisky as he ran.

Two bills of exception appear in the record.

After Ragsdale had testified, the appellant introduced a character witness who testified that Ragsdale's reputation for truth and veracity was not very good.On cross-examination he was asked this question: "You said you drink and I ask you if it isn't a fact that you don't want to see anybody who sells whisky and retails it, if you don't want to see him stay here instead of going to the penitentiary?"To which the witness answered: "No sir, I believe in the law and the enforcement of it and if they violate it I want to see it enforced."

This question and answer is made the subject of bill of exception No. 1.Under the facts of this case, we think the question was proper.Either party has the right to explore the mind of a witness for bias and prejudice.If the answer of the witness had been in the affirmative, it unquestionably would have shown bias.Mr. Underhill states the rule as follows: "The feelings, bias and relationship of the witness are never collateral.A witness may be interrogated on cross-examination as to his interest, bias or prejudice, that is to say, if the sole purpose of the question is to elucidate the existing or previous relationship, feeling or conduct of the witness toward the crime, the accused, or the prosecutors."Underhill's Criminal Evidence(3d Ed.) § 356.See, also, Branch'sP. C. § 163.

Of course, such matters should be received with great caution so that matters which tend only to prejudice be not gotten before the jury under the guise of legitimate cross-examination.The announcement here is therefore restricted to the facts of this case.

BillNo. 2 relates to the cross-examination of another character witness and contains many statements and questions and answers, some of which were clearly admissible.Both admissible and apparently inadmissible statements are presented together in the same bill, against which only a general objection is urged.The rule has been stated by Mr. Branch as follows: "A Bill of Exceptions is too general to be considered if it includes a number of statements some of which are clearly admissible, and there is nothing in the objections to directly challenge or single out the supposed objectionable evidence."Branch's P. C. § 211;Payton v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 510, 34 S. W. 615;Aven v. State, 77...