Pace v. State
| Decision Date | 24 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 38475,38475 |
| Parties | Ingram Chenault PACE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Clyde W. Woody (on appeal only), Houston, for appellant.
Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Carl E. F. Dally, Charles E. Bonney and John Gilleland, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 20 days in jail and a fine of $150.00.
In view of our disposition of this case a recitation of the facts is not deemed necessary other than to observe that appellant placed his reputation in issue and called several witnesses who testified that his reputation for being a peaceable and law abiding citizen was good.
On cross examination of such witnesses, the State was permitted over appellant's objection to ask such witnesses if they had heard that appellant had been charged with speeding in several counties and with running a red light in still another. It was never the intention of this Court to include offenses of this nature when we announced the rule set forth in Vance v. State, 365 S.W.2d 182. We have been cited no authority to support the asking of such questions of a reputation witness, and know of none.
For the error of the Court in permitting the asking of such questions over the repeated objections, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
It is so ordered.
ON STATE'S MOTION FOR REHEARING
We have carefully re-examined our position, set forth in our original opinion, in view of the able argument and scholarly brief submitted by the State.
We failed to set forth in our original opinion inquiries made by the State upon cross-examination of a character or reputation witness, when such questions as these were asked: 'Have you heard that the defendant was charged with being A.W.O.L. from Camp Bowie, Texas, on January 27, 1944?', and 'Have you heard that the defendant was charged by authorities at Camp Bowie, Texas, with impersonating an N.C.O. on January 27, 1944?' We think that the violation of military regulations are acts of misconduct peculiar to the military authorities and such acts do not frequently amount to what we normally regard as acts of misconduct or violations of the civilian law. A serviceman might be charged with the offense of A.W.O.L. because he was one minute late in coming back to his company...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. State
...only requirement is that the act be inconsistent with the character trait about which the witness has testified. See Pace v. State, 398 S.W.2d 123 (Tex.Cr.App.1965). "It should be kept in mind that the purpose of the cross-examination is not to discredit the person on whose behalf the witne......
-
Brown v. State
...The only requirement is that the act be inconsistent with the character trait about which the witness has testified. See Pace v. State, 398 S.W.2d 123 (Tex.Cr.App.1965). The rationale behind the rule is that reputation is an opinion based on hearsay. The reputation witness states his opinio......
-
Johnson v. State
...The only requirement is that the act be inconsistent with the character trait about which the witness has testified. See Pace v. State, 398 S.W.2d 123 (Tex.Cr.App.1965). It should be kept in mind that the purpose of the cross-examination is not to discredit the person on whose behalf the wi......
-
Pemberton v. State
...matter, but on the basis that "have you heard" questions should not be extended to specific acts of misconduct such as A.W.O.L. See Pace v. State, supra. Thus, the so-called "have you heard" first question directed to Loving was not objected to on the ground now urged on We do not understan......