Kissinger v. State
| Decision Date | 25 April 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 16552.,16552. |
| Parties | KISSINGER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Foard County; W. N. Stokes, Judge.
John Kissinger was convicted for theft of an automobile, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
John L. Poulter, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is theft of an automobile; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
Some one stole Roscoe Eubank's automobile and stripped it of its battery, top, wheels, and other parts. The stolen parts were found in a trailer belonging to Otis Rich, who at the time of the discovery was riding in his (Rich's) car with appellant and Bessie Myers. The trailer was attached to the car, and covered, and the automobile parts were hidden from view. Upon being stopped by the sheriff, Rich told him that the trailer had furniture in it.
After his arrest Rich stated to the authorities that appellant and Bessie Myers had nothing to do with the automobile parts found in his trailer. Rich had theretofore been tried, and, upon a plea of guilty, had been convicted and was serving his term at the time he testified on the present trial. There had been one or more previous trials of appellant, in which the state had not used Rich as a witness. Upon the present trial he was brought back from the penitentiary and testified that he and appellant stole the automobile. He testified, further, that when he first went to the penitentiary he thought that he might secure a pardon, but had lost hope.
Appellant did not testify in his own behalf. Bessie Myers gave testimony to the effect that appellant was not present at the time the automobile was stolen and had nothing to do with the transaction. Other witnesses for appellant testified that appellant was with them on the occasion of the theft and could not have committed the offense. Several witnesses testified that Rich had a flat tire as he was coming into town, and that after aiding him in fixing the tire appellant got in the car with him (Rich) and Bessie Myers for the purpose of traveling with them.
As shown in bill of exception No. 9, on cross-examination of Otis Rich, the accomplice witness, appellant's counsel sought to question him concerning his motive in appearing and testifying against appellant. Upon the jury being retired for the purpose of determining the admissibility of the testimony, the following questions were asked the witness by appellant's counsel:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carrillo v. State
...Castro v. State, 562 S.W.2d 252 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Evans v. State, 519 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Kissinger v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 182, 70 S.W.2d 740 (1934). In another case, this Court held that a trial court erred by refusing to permit the defendant to question a key witness on a bill......
-
Adams v. State, 60037
...Castro v. State, 562 S.W.2d 252 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Evans v. State, 519 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Kissinger v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 182, 70 S.W.2d 740 (1934). See also Simmons v. State, 548 S.W.2d 386 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). Appellant argues that the failure of the Orange County authorities t......
-
Green v. State
...and the defendant may show by himself, or by others if necessary, why the witness is unfriendly toward him. Kissinger v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 182, 70 S.W.2d 740, 742 (1934). It is not necessary that a predicate be laid that the witness himself is biased toward the defendant before evidence ......
-
Koehler v. State
...Blake v. State, 365 S.W.2d 795 (Tex.Cr.App.1963); Barr v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 652, 83 S.W.2d 998, 999 (1935); Kissenger v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 182, 70 S.W.2d 740 (1934); and O'Neal v. State, 57 Tex.Cr.R. 249, 122 S.W. 386 We also point out that the right of cross-examination by the accuse......