Lawhon v. State, 27878
| Decision Date | 07 December 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 27878,27878 |
| Citation | 284 S.W.2d 730 |
| Parties | Claude LAWHON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Martin & Shown, by W. E. Martin, Houston, for appellant.
Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady, Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is the sale of whiskey in a wet area without having procured a permit from the Texas Liquor Control Board; the punishment, a fine of $125.
The State, through her able District Attorney, concedes error. The State's principal witness failed to identify the accused as the person who had sold the whiskey to him. There were no other witnesses to the sale. The State plead surprise and introduced a statement made by their witness. This evidence impeaching their witness cannot be used as primary evidence against the appellant. Wells v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 336, 227 S.W.2d 210.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cherb v. State
...1967); Shivers v. State, 374 S.W.2d 672 (Tex.Cr.App., 1964); Hall v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 297 S.W.2d 685 (1957); Lawhon v. State, 284 S.W.2d 730 (Tex.Cr.App., 1955); Wells v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 336, 227 S.W.2d 210 (1950); Carroll v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 269, 158 S.W.2d 532 The affida......
-
Wall v. State, 40473
...S.W.2d 731. It is well established that even properly admitted impeaching testimony cannot be used as primary evidence. Lawhon v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 284 S.W.2d 730; Wells v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 336, 227 S.W.2d 210; Hall v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 297 S.W.2d 685; Shivers v. State, Tex.Cr......
-
Williams v. State, No. 12-07-00428-CR (Tex. App. 12/2/2009)
...49 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1994, no pet.) (citing Aranda v. State, 736 S.W.2d 702, 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)); see also Lawhon v. State, 284 S.W.2d 730, 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955); Pope v. Stephenson, 774 S.W.2d 743, 745 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1989), writ denied, 787 S.W.2d 953 (Tex. 1990). In other ......
-
Richardson v. State
...inconsistent statement used to impeach a witness' credibility cannot be used as primary evidence to prove guilt. Lawhon v. State, 284 S.W.2d 730 (Tex.Crim.App.1955); see Carroll v. State, 143 Tex.Crim.R. 269, 158 S.W.2d 532 (Tex.Crim.App.1942). If evidence is admitted for a specific purpose......