Scoville v. State

• Decision Date: 09 December 1903
• Citation: 77 S.W. 792
• Parties: SCOVILLE v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

77 S.W. 792

SCOVILLE v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

December 9, 1903.

Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; E. B. Muse, Judge.

Charles E. Scoville was convicted of burglary, and appeals. Reversed.

Thomas & Spellman, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROOKS, J.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of five years.

Appellant insists that the court erred in failing to have served upon him a copy of the indictment, as required by the statute. The bill shows that appellant had been convicted, new trial granted, and for a short while thereafter he was out on bond, and was rearrested. Subsequently, when the state announced ready for trial, he for the first time demanded a copy of the indictment. The court refused to grant his request. In this there was no error. On another trial he should be granted a copy of the indictment. See article 540 et seq., Code Cr. Proc. 1895.

While appellant was on the stand as a witness he was asked by the state if he had ever been indicted before for any offense; to which question he answered that he had been convicted of burglary about nine years ago, had subsequently been indicted for burglary, and had also been indicted for theft. Appellant objects to this testimony on the ground that the same was not competent, foreign to the issue under investigation, and could but serve to prejudice the minds of the jury against defendant. We do not think these objections are well taken, but such testimony was admissible as going to the credit of defendant as a witness in the trial of this case. Nor do we think the testimony itself shows that this testimony is remote, as insisted by appellant in his argument and brief.

In appellant's motion for new trial he insists that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury for what purpose they should consider the evidence of appellant of other crimes. Where extraneous crimes are introduced on the cross-examination of defendant as a witness for the purpose of affecting his credibility, it is error for the court to fail to limit the effect of such testimony to the only purpose for which it can be legally considered, to wit, the credibility of the defendant as a witness. Bennett v. State, 64 S. W. 254, 3 Tex. Ct. Rep. 42; Wilson v. State, 76 S. W. 434, 8 Tex. Ct. Rep. 337. Except as stated, the charge of the court is correct.

For the errors discussed, the judgment is...