Scarber v. State, 25573
| Decision Date | 19 December 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 25573,25573 |
| Citation | 156 Tex.Crim. 542,244 S.W.2d 207 |
| Parties | SCARBER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
W. E. Fitzgerald, Wichita Falls, for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The appeal is from a conviction for assault to murder, with a sentence of two years in the penitentiary.
The prosecuting witness had lost a dog and had made inquiry for it which created an impression on the part of appellant that he was being accused of stealing the dog. Appellant got a Negro, Willie Fitzpatrick, to go with him to the home of the prosecuting witness and, according to the state's evidence, he cursed and abused the prosecuting witness who resented the language used toward him, which resulted in a fight during which appellant cut his antagonist several times with a knife and inflicted wounds which, from the extent and location, would be sufficient under proper procedure to support conviction.
The record brings forward seven bills of exception. Appellant had filed an application for suspended sentence. He introduced a witness who testified that he had never been convicted of a felony in this or any other state. Nothing was asked about his general reputating, nor was it necessary to prove same to comply with the statutory requirement. The filing of his application, however, gives the state the privilege of proving his general reputation in order that the jury may determine whether or not they want to give the party on trial the benefit of the suspended sentence law. It does not give the state the authority to go into specific acts and conduct and to prove specific charges against defendant. This is in accord with the general rule. See Jones v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 616, 69 S.W.2d 773 and Williams v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 86, 91 S.W.2d 709.
Bill No. 2 complains of the ruling of the court in permitting the state to prove by cross-examination of appellant's witness that he accused was, on May 6th, 1945, in Jack County, Texas, charged with the offense of rape. The bill shows that his charge was before a justice of the peace, that no indictment was ever returned and no cinviction had thereon.
Bill No. 3 complains of the ruling of the court which permitted the state to prove that the defendant, on or about December 20th, 1947, in Jack County, Texas, was charged with the offense of rape. Again, this charge was before a justice of the peace, no indictment was returned and no conviction had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. State, 05-84-00963-CR
...does not allow the State to introduce evidence of unadjudicated extraneous offenses at trial. This line begins with Scarber v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 542, 244 S.W.2d 207 (1951), and was last cited in Seay v. State, 395 S.W.2d 40 (Tex.Crim.App.1965). It is currently clear that, as a general ru......
-
Mauldin v. State, 29323
...for suspension of sentence does not authorize the state to prove specific acts of misconduct against the accused. Scarber v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 542, 244 S.W.2d 207, and Rodriquez v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 453, 272 S.W.2d 366. The fact that appellant, on his cross-examination by state's coun......
-
Seay v. State, 38318
...of sentence placed his reputation in issue and either party was authorized to introduce evidence on such issue.' In Scarber v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 542, 244 S.W.2d 207, appellant filed an application for a suspended sentence and introduced a witness who testified that he had never been conv......
-
Rodriquez v. State, 27109
...door for proof of such facts in his direct testimony by saying that he had never been in serious trouble before. In Scarber v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 542, 244 S.W.2d 207, we re-stated and approved the well-established rule that the filing of an application for a suspended sentence did not aut......