Scott v. State
| Decision Date | 19 November 1892 |
| Citation | 20 S.W. 549 |
| Parties | SCOTT v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Harrison county; W. J. GRAHAM, Judge.
Wade Scott was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Affirmed.
L. P. Wilson and Pope & Lane, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted of manslaughter, and his punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary, from which judgment he appeals. There is but one question raised in the case. The defendant complains that the court erred in refusing to allow him to impeach his own witness, testifying to facts injurious to his case, by proving he had made a different statement on a former occasion. It seems that the witness Seth Thomas, at the preliminary trial, made a statement favorable to defendant, but at a subsequent hearing on habeas corpus made altogether a different statement; that he was summoned as a witness on the trial of the cause, and was sworn as a witness for the state, but not placed on the stand, as the state had other witnesses to prove the same facts. Thereupon defendant placed the witness upon the stand, and drew out the same facts the witness had testified to on habeas corpus, and then sought to impeach him by proving the facts originally stated at the preliminary trial. We think the court did not err in refusing to allow the defendant to impeach the witness. The statute is for the protection of those whose cause is unexpectedly injured by a witness, but not where the testimony is deliberately drawn out by the counsel, who knew beforehand what the testimony would probably be. In our opinion, a proper and sufficient case in which the impeachment of one's own witness would be allowable is not established by the facts shown. And, even if there was, there would be no injury to defendant. Even conceding the witness Seth Thomas had sworn on this trial as on the preliminary hearing, there is no dispute of facts that deceased had abandoned the difficulty, and was fleeing for his life, and that defendant followed and overtook and killed him, and, under the law and facts of the case, could be guilty of nothing less than manslaughter. We think the punishment exceedingly moderate. The judgment is affirmed. Judges all present and concurring.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Renn v. State
...sworn to no fact injurious to him, but there is simply a failure to make proof, Bailey v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 581, 40 S. W. 281; Scott v. State, 20 S. W. 549; Vaden v. State, 25 S. W. The decisions have held, and correctly so, that error in permitting the state to impeach her own witness ......
-
Hollingsworth v. State
...way of impeachment," but not so when the state was fully aware she would not so testify when placed on the witness stand. And in Scott v. State, 20 S. W. 549, this court "The statute is for the protection of those whose cause is unexpectedly injured by a witness." The state, knowing she wou......
-
Ingram v. State
...The rule is clearly stated in Branch's Criminal Law, § 866, when one can and when one cannot impeach his own witness. Scott v. State, 20 S. W. 549, is particularly in The authorities cited by appellant correctly hold, under our statute, when one is surprised at the testimony of the witness,......
-
Wall v. State, 40473
...on a vital issue. Perrett v. State, 75 Tex.Cr.R. 94, 170 S.W. 316; Hollingsworth v. State, 78 Tex.Cr.R. 489, 182 S.W. 465; Scott v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 20 S.W. 549; 62 Tex.Jur.2d, 339, Sec. In the instant case, the State, at no time, claimed surprise nor laid any predicate to justify impeac......