State v. Hilton
| Decision Date | 01 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. A--11715,A--11715 |
| Citation | 412 S.W.2d 41 |
| Parties | The STATE of Texas v. Clara HILTON et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Crawford C. Martin, Atty. Gen., Watson Arnold, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, for petitioner.
Frank B. McGregor, Waco, for respondents.
In this eminent domain proceeding the State has condemned certain property consisting of 19.07 acres of land and a drainage easement over .46 acres of land; compensation to the Respondent landowners for a resulting land locked tract of .29 acres is also involved. The property is out of an original 66.445 acres tract owned by Respondents and it was stipulated that payment with respect to the .29 acres and the .46 acres would be as if taken in fee simple. The property lies approximately one-half mile east of the city limits of Itasca, Texas. It is divided by Farm Road 66 into a north tract of 29.575 acres and a south tract of 36.87 acres. The property was required in connection with the construction of Interstate Highway 35 which runs north and south and intersects Farm Road 66. The board of special commissioners awarded $6,000 as the value of the land taken and $6,000 as severance damages to the remainder. The State appealed. Judgment was entered by the trial court on a jury verdict awarding Respondents $7,928 for the land taken and $6,993.75 as severance damages, or a total of $14,921.75. Upon appeal by the State the court of civil appeals recognized that the trial court erred in certain respects but held that such errors were not reversibly harmful under Rule 434, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. State v. Hilton, Tex.Civ.App., 405 S.W.2d 715. We granted the State's application for writ of error principally to review the holding of the court of civil appeals that the error of the trial court in denying the State the right of cross-examination of Respondents' witness, Ira Beard in respects later noted, was harmless error. We hold that such constituted reversible error.
Ira Beard, the witness in question, was a member of the board of special commissioners appointed to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded Respondents. He, together with the other two commissioners, signed the $12,000 award under oath. The award attributed to the property in question a market value of approximately $300 an acre. As a witness for Respondents upon the trial, however, the witness Beard testified that the Hilton farm before the taking was worth '$500 or $600 an acre' and as to the remainder he testified, 'Well, the way it looks right now, it looks to me like it reduced it right smart down to $175 or $200 an acre.' 1 Under this testimony the minimum value of the part taken would be $9,910, the maximum value $11,892; the minimum decrease in the value of the remainder would be $13,987.50, the maximum decrease $19,815.62; the total minimum damages would be $23,897.50, and the total maximum damages would be $31,707.62. Generally, of course, the award of the board of special commissioners is inadmissible. See Dueitt v. Harris County, 249 S.W.2d 636 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston 1952, writ ref'd); Schwab v. County of Bexar, 366 S.W.2d 952 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.); 22 Tex.Jur.2d, Eminent Domain, § 303, p. 428. Here, however, there was an obvious inconsistency between the award of the special commissioners and Beard's trial testimony, notwithstanding which the trial court denied the State the right to cross-examine him in such respects. C. R. Youngblood, the value witness for the State, testified that the value of the property taken was $5,705 and the decrease in the value of the remainder was $380. The jury findings were that the part taken had a value of $7,928 and that the decrease in value of the remainder was $6,993.75, an approximate mean between the testimony of Beard and Youngblood. A similar problem was presented in City of Dallas v. Holcomb, 381 S.W.2d 347 (Te...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Ramirez
...314 (Tex.1987) ("Cross-examination is a safeguard essential to a fair trial and a cornerstone in the quest for truth."); State v. Hilton, 412 S.W.2d 41, 42-43 (Tex.1967) (holding that error in denying cross-examination of witness was harmful because witness was "the real supporting At trial......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rivas
...39 S.W. 132 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio 1896); State v. Hilton, 405 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.Civ.App., Waco 1966), rev. on other grounds, 412 S.W.2d 41 (Tex.1967); and Curry v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 237, 248 S.W.2d 166 (1952); as authority that the error committed, if any, in refusing defendant's requ......
-
Hurley v. Wood County Electric Cooperative, Inc., No. 06-08-00027-CV (Tex. App. 9/26/2008)
...commissioners is normally inadmissible. PR Invs. & Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. State, 251 S.W.3d 472, 476 (Tex. 2008); State v. Hilton, 412 S.W.2d 41, 42 (Tex. 1967). Since we do not have a reporter's record, it is not clear whether the award was introduced into evidence—much less whether ......
-
Davidson v. Great Nat. Life Ins. Co.
...responds that since Carmelli was Davidson's "key witness," error associated with his testimony compels reversal. In State v. Hilton, 412 S.W.2d 41 (Tex.1967), we held that error in denying cross-examination of a witness was reversible error because that witness was "the real supporting witn......