Marks v. State
| Decision Date | 27 January 1904 |
| Citation | 78 S.W. 512 |
| Parties | MARKS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Hill County Court; L. C. Hill, Judge.
Sam Marks was convicted of violating the local option law, and appeals. Reversed.
Douglass & Shurtliff and Spell & Phillips, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This conviction was for violating the local option law During the trial appellant testified in his own behalf. On cross-examination he was forced to testify as to the fact that, when local option was heretofore in force in Hillsboro, he was indicted in the court a number of times for violations of that law, and that this occurred in 1894 and 1895. Several objections were urged to the introduction of this testimony. Stewart v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 38 S. W. 1144, is directly in point, and conclusive of the question that this was error. The state calls our attention to the Levine Case, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 647, 34 S. W. 969. We are of opinion that case is not in point, nor is the question analogous. In Levine's Case conviction was sought for violating the Sunday law and the evidence of previous sales was introduced for the purpose of showing his guilt in the case on trial. The matters in the case in hand occurred eight or nine years before this trial, and could not have been introduced for that purpose. This case could not be made out by alleged violations eight or nine years previous to its alleged occurrence. Under the authorities this evidence was not admissible for the purpose indicated, nor to impeach appellant as a witness.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lowry
... ... State, Ga. 49 S.E. 689; Cook v. State, Miss. 32 ... So. 312; Crimes v. State, Tex. 72 S.W. 862; ... People v. Dial, Cal. 153 P. 970; Smith v. State, ... Okla. 113 P. 204; Lee v. State, Tex. 73 S.W ... 407; Allen v. State, Tex. 73 S.W. 397; Driver v ... State, Tex. 85 S.W. 1056; Marks v. State, Tex ... 78 S.W. 512; Belt v. State, Tex. 78 S.W. 932; ... Rock v. State, Ind. 110 N.E. 212; State v ... Stike, Mo. 129 S.W. 1024; Day v. United States, ... 220 F. 818; Taliaferro v. United States, 213 F. 25; ... People v. Converse, Mich. 121 N.W. 475; Harris ... v. State, Tex. 97 ... ...
-
Jennings v. State
...298, 135 S. W. 124; Hightower v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 109, 131 S. W. 324; Jennings v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 147, 115 S. W. 587; Marks v. State, 78 S. W. 512; Lee v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 51, 73 S. W. 407; Stewart v. State, 38 S. W. 1144; Tyrrell v. State, 38 S. W. 1011; Merriwether v. Stat......
-
Shipp v. State
...being nothing in the bill to show that the accused had not reformed, the testimony was characterized as too remote. The Marks Case (Tex. Cr. App.) 78 S. W. 512, seems without bearing upon the subject, inasmuch as the extraneous crimes proved were misdemeanors, not involving moral turpitude.......
-
Shepherd v. State
...v. State, 38 S. W. 1144; Lee v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 51, 73 S. W. 407; Jennings v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 147, 115 S. W. 587; Marks v. State, 78 S. W. 512; Hays v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 149, 82 S. W. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. ...