Perez v. State
| Decision Date | 30 April 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 21607.,21607. |
| Citation | 150 S.W.2d 402 |
| Parties | PEREZ v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Nueces County; Geo. C. Westervelt, Judge.
Timoteo Perez was convicted for the possession of marihuana, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Roy A. Scott, of Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was found guilty of the possession of marihuana, and sentenced to serve two and one-half years in the penitentiary.
The testimony shows that the peace officers arrested appellant and found in his possession a can of marihuana. This was admitted by appellant, who claimed, however, that one Rodriguez had sent appellant to Rodriguez's house for a certain can underneath the doorstep, and requesting appellant to bring the same to Rodriguez at a place in Corpus Christi called White's Club. That he, appellant, did not know what was in the can, but he did as Rodriguez requested. This defense was submitted to the jury and by them seems to have been disbelieved. That was their province.
Bill of exceptions No. 1, in our judgment, reflects an error which will demand a reversal of this cause. The appellant testified in his own behalf. Prior to such time his attorney had informed the trial court, as well as the State's attorney, that appellant had in the year 1928 been convicted of the offense of burglary, and served a term in the penitentiary therefor. That at the time of such conviction appellant was between the ages of seventeen and eighteen years; that he had not since such time been charged nor convicted of any offense against the laws of this State. While on the witness stand the State's attorney asked him the following question, over appellant's objection, and he was required to answer the same: "In the course of your 28 years of life, you have been to the penitentiary once, haven't you?" and his answer was "Yes". The trial court limited this testimony to the matter of the credibility of the witness.
We think this matter should not have been gone into by the State. It was affirmatively shown that from the time of this early conviction approximately eleven years had elapsed, with no evidence of a lack of reformation, and we think this first conviction, under our holdings, was too remote. We have oftentimes said that, relative to the remoteness of convictions, no set rule can be laid down nor adhered to. Persuasive elements, however, such as the youth of the offender at the first offense, and a continuous refrain from further offenses for an extended period of time, should be given...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hawthorne
...crime, if considered too remote by the trial judge, may be declared inadmissible to affect credibility. See, Perez v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 575, 150 S.W.2d 402 (Tex.Crim.App.1941), and 11-year old burglary conviction; Dallas County Water Control & Improvement District v. Ingram, 395 S.W.2d 8......
-
Williams v. State
...with him. See Thompson v. State, 506 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Black v. State, 505 S.W.2d 821 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Perez v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 575, 150 S.W.2d 402 (1941). See also Bowers v. State, 570 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). Cf., however, the fact situation in Jaycon v. State, 651......
-
Black v. State, 48133
...is required, although the evidence may also disclose that, in doing the criminal act, another took an equal part. Perez v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 575, 150 S.W.2d 402 (1941); Smith v. State, 472 S.W.2d 121 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Durham v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 395, 16 S.W.2d 1092 (1929); Vol. 1, Ve......
-
Lowe v. State, 36848
...next contends that the Court erred in charging the jury on the abstract law of principals. Reliance is had upon Perez v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 575, 150 S.W.2d 402. As we view Perez, it was not reversed because the court charged on principals, but Judge Graves merely observed that, in his opi......