Littlefield v. State
| Citation | 5 S.W. 650 |
| Parties | LITTLEFIELD v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 02 November 1887 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from district court, Gonzales county; G. McCORMICK, Judge.
This conviction was for perjury, and the penalty assessed was a term of seven years in the penitentiary.
In substance, it was proved by the state that when he was before the grand jury in reference to the burglary of a store by Carr and others the appellant testified that he knew nothing about that burglary, that he did not see Carr on the day previous to the burglary, and that he did not leave his house on the night of the burglary, and did not see Carr on that night. That he testified on Carr's trial that he and the said Carr and another played cards all night on the night of the burglary at a house remote from the house burglarized, and that Carr was not at the house burglarized on that night. A state's witness testified that after Carr's trial he asked appellant why he testified as he did on the trial of Carr, and that appellant replied that Carr's friends got him drunk and prevailed upon him to do so.
No appearance for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the lower court charging him with having committed perjury as a witness on the trial of one Carr in the district court for the crime of burglary. Only two of the several questions presented are deemed worthy of notice. Several witnesses were introduced by the prosecution, and over objection of defendant were permitted to prove statements and declarations made by defendant before the grand jury when he appeared as a witness at the time they were investigating the Carr case, and subsequently to the trial in said case, with reference to the reasons and inducements which actuated him to testify as he did on the said trial. This testimony was legitimate upon the issue being tried, to-wit, perjury in the Carr case, and tended to prove such perjury by showing contradictory evidence in the grand jury to that given by defendant at the trial in the district court, and also statements tantamount to admissions that his evidence in Carr's case in the district court was not the truth. It was properly admitted.
Upon the other question, counsel representing the state on this appeal admits that the error complained of is well assigned under previous adjudications. It is this: On the trial, the state introduced in evidence the indictment and judgment in the Carr burglary case, wherein it was charged that app...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laird v. State
...372, 3 S. W. 667; Washington v. State, 23 Tex. App. 336, 5 S. W. 119; Maines v. State, 23 Tex. App. 568, 5 S. W. 123; Littlefield v. State, 24 Tex. App. 167, 5 S. W. 650; Higgenbotham v. State, 24 Tex. App. 505, 6 S. W. 201; Kitchen v. State, 26 Tex. App. 165, 9 S. W. 461; Foster v. State, ......
-
Dickerson v. State
...and which had been admitted to show materiality. (Ross v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 349, 50 S.W. 336; Littlefield v. State, 24 Tex.App. 167. 5 S.W. 650; Maines State, 23 Tex.App. 568; 5 S.W. 123; Washington v. State, 23 Tex.App. 336, 5 S.W. 119; Davidson v State, 22 Tex.App. 372, 3 S.W. 662; State......
-
Starnes v. State
...3 S. W. 662, 665; Washington v. State, 23 Tex. App. 338, 5 S. W. 119; Maines v. State, 23 Tex. App. 576, 5 S. W. 123; Littlefield v. State, 24 Tex. App. 169, 5 S. W. 650; Kitchen v. State, 26 Tex. App. 172, 9 S. W. 461, and others written by our illustrious predecessors so holding, but in t......
-
Hunter v. State
...was not error. Davidson v. State, 22 Tex. App. 373, 3 S. W. 662; Washington v. State, 23 Tex. App. 336, 5 S. W. 119; Littlefield v. State, 24 Tex. App. 167, 5 S. W. 650. Matters affecting the question as to whether the alleged false testimony was given willfully and deliberately become pert......