Lee v. State
Decision Date | 26 March 1903 |
Citation | 73 S.W. 407 |
Parties | LEE v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Fannin County Court; W. A. Evans, Judge.
Toney Lee was convicted of violating the local option law, and appeals. Reversed.
Jas. H. Lyday, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25, and 20 days' confinement in the county jail.
The state was permitted to prove by defendant, on cross-examination, over his objections, that six or eight months prior to the institution of this prosecution he (defendant) was indicted for selling, in violation of the local option law, a drink called "Waukesha"; that he pleaded guilty in one case, and was fined and sent to jail for 20 days. Appellant objected to said testimony because the same in no way tended to prove the charge for which he was on trial, that the same would prejudice his case, and that the same was a separate and distinct crime. These objections are well taken. Johnson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 62 S. W. 756; Denton v. State, 70 S. W. 217, 1 Tex. Ct. Rep. 567; Walker v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 72 S. W. 997; and McAnally v. State (just decided) 73 S. W. 404. In Ware v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 599, 38 S. W. 198, we used this language: And so with this transaction. The fact that appellant had previously been convicted and paid a fine for selling Waukesha, beer, or other intoxicants, would not be evidence of his guilt of the charge now on trial.
The second bill complains that, while the witness In Lights v. State, 21 Tex. App. 308, 17 S. W. 428, we held it was competent to introduce evidence of the fact that appellant had been in the penitentiary for a crime, for the purpose of discrediting him. This case overrules State v. Ezell, 41 Tex. 35, announcing the contrary doctrine. In Woodson v. State, 24 Tex. App. 162, 6 S. W. 184, the Lights Case was reaffirmed. In Carroll v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 434, 24 S. W. 100, 40 Am. St. Rep. 786, both of said cases are quoted with approval; the court stating (quoting from Real v. People) "that a witness on cross-examination may be asked whether he has been in jail, penitentiary, or other place that would tend to impair his credit," and whether he has been convicted, or whether he has had a charge preferred against him, and that such inquiry may be made even if the party is out on bond. The court states: "This character of cross-examination is permitted upon the theory that, where a man's life or liberty depends upon the testimony of another, it is of the highest importance that they whom the law makes the exclusive judges of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses should know how far the witness is to be trusted." The rule that a witness may be impeached by asking...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. State
...defendant was a criminal generally. Gilbraith v. State, 41 Tex. 567; Buck v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 319, 83 S. W. 390; Lee v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 51, 73 S. W. 407; McIver v. State, 60 S. W. 51; Buck v. State, 38 S. W. 772; Kelley v. State, 18 Tex. App. 262; Bryan v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 2......
- State v. Lowry
-
Simmons v. State, 42716
...imputing moral turpitude, if such is the fact, or the record of conviction can be introduced to attack his credibility. Lee v. State, 45 Tex.Cr.R. 51, 73 S.W. 407. See also Parker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 384 S.W.2d 712, holding that where the defendant on his direct examination testified tha......
-
Bowman v. State
...defendant was a criminal generally. Gilbraith v. State, 41 Tex. 567; Buck v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 319, 83 S. W. 390; Lee v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 51, 73 S. W. 407; McIver v. State, 60 S. W. 51; Buck v. State, 38 S. W. 772; Kelley v. State, 18 Tex. App. 262; Bryan v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 2......