McLean v. State
| Decision Date | 27 January 1894 |
| Citation | 24 S.W. 898 |
| Parties | McLEAN et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Collin county court; M. G. Abernathy, Judge.
Kate McLean and Ellis Barnett, convicted of adultery, appeal. Reversed.
Jenkins & Pearson, for appellants. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellants, who are negroes, were convicted of adultery, and their punishment assessed at $100 each. The parties being jointly indicated and jointly tried, the state, over the objection of defendants, introduced as a witness Sophrona Barnett, wife of appellant Ellis Barnett, who testified as to the most inculpatory facts in the case. This is assigned as error. The Code declares the husband and wife shall in no case testify against each other, except in a criminal prosecution for an offense committed by one against the other. Code Crim. Proc. art. 735. In Compton's Case, 13 Tex. App. 271, it was held that the adultery of one of the parties was not embraced in the terms of said article 735, and it was error to admit such testimony. This construction of the Code was approved in Thomas' Case, 14 Tex. App. 72, and Johnson's Case, 27 Tex. App. 135, 11 S. W. 34. In his qualification to his bill of exceptions the court says: "The proof was offered only against defendant Kate McLean, and the jury were instructed not to consider the testimony as to Ellis Barnett." The testimony was as to the acts of adultery between the parties It would have been impossible for a reasonable mind to have obeyed the instruction of the court. The error could not be cured by such an instruction.
2. Appellants further complain that the court limited them to 17 minutes for discussing the testimony before the jury. Taking into consideration the number of witnesses testifying, and the conflict in the testimony, we think the court erred in placing any such limitation upon counsel. Walker's Case, (Tex. Cr. App.) 22 S. W. 685. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rossi v. United States
...was held to be unreasonable are White v. People, 90 Ill. 117, 32 Am. Rep. 12 (9 witnesses, limitation 5 minutes); McLean v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 521, 24 S. W. 898 (many witnesses, limitation 17 minutes); Jones v. Commonwealth, 87 Va. 63, 12 S. E. 226 (17 witnesses, limitation thirty minute......
-
Reagan v. St. Louis Transit Co.
...a criminal prosecution for adultery, where the two defendants were represented by separate counsel, was held improper. McLean v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 521, 24 S. W. 898. Many other instances might be referred to on both sides of the question, but the foregoing are sufficient to illustrate t......
-
Reagan v. St. Louis Transit Co.
... ... the testimony of the witnesses and apply the law to the ... testimony. White v. People, 90 Ill. 117; Dille ... v. State, 34 Ohio St. 617; Hunt v. State, 49 ... Ga. 255; State v. Page, 21 Mo. 257; State v ... Baker, 136 Mo. 83. (3) Rule 29 of the circuit court ... adultery, where the two defendants were represented by ... separate counsel, was held improper. [ McLean v ... State, 32 Tex. Crim. 521, 24 S.W. 898.] Many other ... instances might be referred to on both sides of the question, ... but the foregoing ... ...
-
Arevalo v. State
...se unreasonable, citing this Court to McLean v. State which held 17 minutes to be an unreasonable amount of time. See McLean v. State, 32 Tex.Crim. 521, 24 S.W. 898 (1894). Appellant fails to point out that the McLean case made this holding after "[t]aking into consideration the number of w......