Smith v. State
| Citation | 44 S.W. 520 |
| Parties | SMITH v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 16 February 1898 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from district court, McLennan county; Sam R. Scott, Judge.
Bob Smith was convicted of theft, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Samuel H. Clayton, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Conviction for the theft of property of the value of $50 or more. The court instructed the jury, in passing upon the value of the property alleged to have been stolen, that the market value controlled. This was correct. In fact, if there had been an erroneous charge upon this subject, there could have been no injury to the appellant, because the proof shows that the property was worth over $50, to wit, of the value of $55. There were several objections to the court's charge in other particulars. We have examined the charge, and believe it to be correct. The charge required the jury to believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant alone, or with others, took the property. This was sufficient in regard to the taking.
A bill of exceptions was reserved to the admission of testimony impeaching Mille Smith, the wife of the appellant. The objection to this testimony is that it was in impeachment of Mille Smith upon facts not sworn to by her in her testimony in chief. No witness can be impeached in this manner, whether it be the wife of the accused or any other witness. The question therefore is whether she had sworn to facts which authorized this impeachment. Appellant introduced his wife as a witness, and she testifies that on the night of the theft she was at home; that Jim Mollin. Lee Wilson, Ben Hickman, Hoffman, and her husband were there; that Hoffman went out, and told the others to let him know when they were ready. Shortly afterwards Hoffman came back to the house, and Jim Mollin and Lee Wilson left by way of the back door. Hoffman said they were going girl-hunting. About 2 o'clock she saw Lee Wilson come to the house, and place a sack of stuff on the front gallery, and soon thereafter he moved it away, and carried it underneath the house. She says that she saw this. Now, the inference to be drawn from this testimony is that her husband did not leave the house. It was an indifferent way of proving an alibi. If not, it served no beneficial purpose for the defendant. This being the effect of the testimony, the state had a right to prove by other witnesses that she had stated that her husband left the house with these parties on the night of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. State
...be cross-examination. We collate and cite only some of the cases. Swanney v. State, 146 S. W. 549; Reagan v. State, 157 S. W. 484; Smith v. State, 44 S. W. 520; Johnson v. State, 162 S. W. 514; Cameron v. State, 153 S. W. 868; Ward v. State, 159 S. W. 278; Northcutt v. State, 158 S. W. 1005......
-
Johnson v. State
...had the right to thus impeach her testimony. In addition to the authorities cited in the original opinion on this point, we cite Smith v. State, 44 S. W. 520; Crews v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 545, 31 S. W. 373; Exon v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 469, 26 S. W. 1088; Young v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 4......
-
People v. Silbertrust
...place, and circumstances, for the purpose of obtaining the highest price.’ In Clark v. State, 23 Tex. App. 612,5 S. W. 178,Smith v. State, (Tex. Cr. App.) 44 S. W. 520, and People v. Cole, 54 Mich. 238,19 N. E. 968, it was held that the value which must be proven is the market value of the ......