Oliver v. State
| Decision Date | 20 October 1894 |
| Citation | 28 S.W. 202 |
| Parties | OLIVER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Shelby county; Drury Field, Special Judge.
Tom Oliver was convicted of arson, and appeals. Reversed.
Hugh B. Short, for appellant. R. L. Henry, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of arson, and his punishment assessed at seven years.
1. Appellant claims the court erred in permitting Miss Powdrill to testify that appellant had quarreled with said witness, who was his stepdaughter, and had struck her with a stick. The evidence shows that appellant treated his stepdaughter badly, and had driven her from his house, and would not let her have her clothes when she came for them. She had taken refuge at her uncle's home, and on returning next day, with young Crump, for her clothes, appellant ordered them to leave, and called for his pistol, and they left at once. A day or two after this, the house of her uncle, W. J. Crump, was burned. The object of this testimony was to show motive for the burning,—that the ill will of defendant to his stepdaughter prompted him to destroy the house which had given her a home; and for this purpose the testimony was admissible.
2. The court did not err in permitting the state to prove, by cross-examination of defendant, that he had been charged with other offenses. Jackson's Case (Tex. Cr. App.) 26 S. W. 195.
3. A fatal error was committed by the court in not instructing the jury as to the purpose for which the evidence as to the former offenses was admitted. As held by this court, it was the duty of the trial court to have charged the jury in writing that the testimony was admitted, not as proof of appellant's guilt of the crime charged, but only to affect his credibility as a witness. Hargrove's Case (Tex. Cr. App.) 26 S. W. 993; Warren's Case, Id. 1082; Nelson's Case, Id. 623.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. State
...in the history of Texas jurisprudence. See Jackson v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 281, 26 S. W. 194, 622, 47 Am. St. Rep. 30; Oliver v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 541, 28 S. W. 202. These cases have been followed without intermission, so far as I am informed, in the history of our jurisprudence. So th......
-
State v. Kent
......423, 33. N.E. 65; State v. Hoyt , 46 Conn. 330;. Moore v. U.S. , 150 U.S. 57, 14 S.Ct. 26, 37. L.Ed. 996; Com. v. McCarthy , 119 Mass. 354;. Crass v. State , 31 Tex.Crim. 312, 20 S.W. 579; State v. Cohn , 9 Nev. 179;. State v. Dearborn , 59 N.H. 348;. Oliver v. State , 33 Tex.Crim. 541, 28 S.W. 202; State v. Watkins , 9 Conn. 47. . . This. case is unusual in its facts. The proof of the commission of. the crime or crimes at Medina, Ohio, would not, as we view. it, have had any legal tendency to furnish a motive for the. ......
-
State v. Bickford
......678; People v. Hagenow, 236 Ill. 514, 86 N.E. 370; Morse v. Com. 129 Ky. 294, 111 S.W. 714; Francis v. State, 7 Tex.App. 501; McCall v. State, 14. Tex.App. 353; Barton v. State, 28 Tex.App. 484, 13. S.W. 783; Warren v. State, 33 Tex. Crim. Rep. 502,. 26 S.W. 1082; Oliver v. State, 33 Tex. Crim. Rep. 541, 28 S.W. 202; Thornley v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. Rep. 125, 61 Am. St. Rep. 837, 34 S.W. 264, 35 S.W. 981;. Martin v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. Rep. 125, 35 S.W. 976; Grant v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. Rep. 311, 70 S.W. 954; Peterson v. State, Tex. Crim. Rep. , 70 ......
-
State v. Pancoast
...119 Mass. 354;Crass v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 20 S. W. 579;State v. Cohn, 9 Nev. 179;State v. Dearborn, 59 N. H. 348;Oliver v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 28 S. W. 202;State v. Watkins, 9 Conn. 52. This case is unusual in its facts. The proof of the commission of the crime or crimes at Medina, Ohi......