Ross v. State

• Decision Date: 18 March 1908
• Citation: 109 S.W. 152
• Parties: ROSS v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

109 S.W. 152

ROSS v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 18, 1908.

Appeal from Montague County Court; Geo. S. March, Judge.

Frank Ross was convicted of violating the local option law, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Jas. A. Graham, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted for violating the local option law. Matters in regard to the indictment in this case have been discussed, and decided adversely to appellant in the case of Massie v. State (decided at the present term), 107 S. W. 846. The disposition of those questions will dispose also of the objections to the introduction and admission of the orders of the commissioners' court complained of in bill of exceptions No. 2.

Over the objection of appellant, by each of the witnesses Leonard and Pryor, the state was permitted to prove that they had a bottle of whisky, or some of whisky, in what is termed a "clubroom," at the time it was closed by the officers and the contents thereof taken under a search warrant. This whisky they kept in the room for their own purposes, out of which they drank at their pleasure. The matter was in no way connected with the alleged sale of the whisky, by appellant, to the alleged purchaser Bowman. This was elicited by the state on cross-examination of the witnesses who appeared for appellant. The objection urged was immateriality and irrelevancy, and, further, that it could throw no light upon any legitimate issue of the case. We think these objections were well taken. There was no other purpose for which this evidence could be introduced, except for that of impeachment, and for this purpose it was not admissible. The mere fact that a witness would keep a bottle of whisky in his clubroom, or in his house of business, or in his private residence, does not afford a ground of impeachment of his credibility; and the fact that a witness, in no way connected with the sale alleged, but simply testifying in the case as such witness, cannot be thus attacked, and proof of the mere fact that he may keep whisky at his business house or residence, could throw no light on the transaction between the accused and a third party, who was a purchaser. We think it was wholly immaterial and irrelevant, and could throw no light, or tend to throw any light, on this transaction. A party cannot be impeached on collateral and irrelevant matters in this manner.

Among other things, the court charged the jury as...