Lucas v. State, 36700
| Decision Date | 01 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 36700,36700 |
| Citation | 378 S.W.2d 340 |
| Parties | Jimmie LUCAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jack K. Pedigo, Jack P. Kelso, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for the unlawful sale of marihuana; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.
At the beginning of the trial, appellant presented a motion to the court in which he stated that he did not intend to put his character as a peaceable law-abiding citizen in issue and requested the court to instruct the district attorney not to interrogare him in any manner concerning two previous arrests in San Patricio and Nueces Counties for alleged violations of the Texas Uniform Narcotic Drug Act. It was alleged in the motion that the appellant had never been convicted for the possession or sale of marihuana or any other narcotic drug and that it would be highly prejudicial, inflammatory, and a deprivation of his rights to a fair trial to permit the prosecution to question or allude to or imply in any way in the presence of the jury that he may have been previously indicted for violation of the Texas Uniform Narcotic Drug Act.
Such motion was by the court granted.
Upon the trial, appellant did not take the witness stand in his own behalf but called certain witnesses who testified that his reputation for truth and veracity was good.
This testimony, although not relevant to any issue in the case, was permitted by the court, no objection having been made by the state.
Lonnie Mitchell, a witness called by appellant, testified on his direct examination, in part as follows:
['Q Now, are you acquainted with his reputation in the community where he lives for truth and veracity?] A Well, to the best of my knowledge, sir, lawyer, I am, sir.
['Q All right.] A That's all I can answer, to the best of my knowledge.
A Well, yes, sir. I've always known him to tell the truth, sir.
' A Well, his reputation with me is good for telling the truth, sir.
['Q All right.] A Yes, sir. That's all I can answer.
['Q Is his reputation in the community good?] A Well, I'm quite sure it is. He's got an awful good credit rating there, and if he was dishonest, I don't guess he would have a good credit rating.
['Q All right.] A Yes, sir.'
On his cross-examination by the district attorney the witness was asked, amont other questions, the following:
* * *
* * * 'Q Hadn't you heard when you so testified as to his being honest, on January 21st of 1936 in Corpus Christi for the possession of marihuana?'
The court permitted the first question and answer over certain general objections by appellant but sustained his objection to the latter question, with the following ruling:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reyes v. State
...into issue, Hughes v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 650, 245 S.W. 440 (App.1922), and that credibility may be attacked. Lucas v. State, 378 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.Cr.App.1964). In Creech v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 422, 329 S.W.2d 290 (1959), the defendant was asked on cross-examination whether "he would say th......
-
State v. Milton
...State v. Garcia, 83 N.M. 51, 487 P.2d 1356 (Ct.App.1971). This rule extends to proof of prior arrests of the accused. In Lucas v. State, 378 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.Cr.App.1964) the court held that a mistrial should have been granted by the trial for answers on prior arrests for burglary and theft ......
-
Landers v. State
...the unidentified check from evidence and instructed the jury not to consider it. Neither was done in the case at bar. See Lucas v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 378 S.W.2d 340. For the error noted, the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial. Appellant's other grounds of error are not Opinion a......
-
Harnett v. State
...On appeal, he continues to rely on his trial objection. No error was preserved. Appellant, however, relies upon Lucas v. State, 378 S.W.2d 340 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964); Tate v. State, 762 S.W.2d 678 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, pet. ref'd) and Govan v. State, 671 S.W.2d 660 (Tex. App......