Redding v. State, 23477.
| Decision Date | 13 November 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 23477.,23477. |
| Citation | 197 S.W.2d 357 |
| Parties | REDDING v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Fannin County Court; T. G. Finley, Judge.
Walter Redding was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in a dry area, and he appeals.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Cunningham, Lipscomb & Cole, of Bonham, for appellant.
Ernest S. Goens, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The appellant was convicted of the offense of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in Fannin County, a dry area. The fine assessed was One Hundred Dollars.
The officers, under the authority of a search warrant, found in the appellant's kitchen in his home twelve pints of intoxicating liquor. The state made this proof and rested upon the presumption that he had it for sale. Appellant testifying in his own behalf claimed it was for medicinal purposes. He presented a doctor who verified his claim to the extent of saying that he had asthma and that the doctor had prescribed a small quantity for him at such times as he would be suffering from asthma. This claim constituted appellant's defense, which the jury rejected.
We have two bills of exception for consideration, one of which will be sustained. This bill brings to our attention the cross-examination of the accused, by the county attorney, relating to matters while appellant was under arrest. After he had testified on the trial of his case that he had the whisky for medicinal purposes he was examined, over objection, to show that when arrested he did not make that explanation to the officers arresting him. This form of examination has frequently been held to be improper. The accused has a right to keep silent when arrested, and the fact of such silence may not be shown by the state, either in testimony or in argument, as a guilty circumstance. Weatherred v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 514, 89 S.W.2d 212.
In the instant case the examination did not relate to or rebut any statement made by accused, but presented the fact of his silence as a circumstance against him. This the state may not do. Taylor v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 340, 42 S.W.2d 426; Stokes v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 377, 71 S.W.2d 882.
In the Weatherred case, supra, Judge Lattimore clearly distinguishes between such testimony when presented in rebuttal of evidence offered in defense and cases in which the state has taken the initiative and made proof for the purpose of using the silence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanchez v. State
...the accused's right to be free from compelled self-incrimination under Art. I, § 10, Texas Constitution. Redding v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 576, 197 S.W.2d 357 (Tex.Cr.App.1946); Weatherred v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 514, 89 S.W.2d 212 (Tex.Cr.App.1935); Johnson v. State, 100 Tex.Cr.R. 215, 272 S......
-
Stokes v. Procunier, 83-2481
...arrest as a circumstance indicating guilt. See, e.g., Hicks v. State, 493 S.W.2d 833, 836-37 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); Redding v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 576, 197 S.W.2d 357 (1946); Taylor v. State, 118 Tex.Crim. 340, 42 S.W.2d 426 (1931). At the time of Stokes' trial, the grounds for objection to ......
-
Ex Parte Heidelberg, No. AP-75,263 (Tex. Crim. App. 11/15/2006)
...(plurality opinion). 33. Id. at 580. 34. 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 35. Sanchez v. State, supra, at 579, quoting Redding v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 576, at 577, 197 S.W.2d 357 (1946) (emphasis supplied). Both Redding and the cases cited therein stand for the proposition that "[t]he state cannot avai......
-
West v. State
...to remain silent whether he is given a Miranda warning or not. Cuellar v. State, 613 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Redding v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 576, 197 S.W.2d 357 (1946). However, we conclude that this difference between the Texas and Federal Rule on post-arrest silence does not prohibi......