Thomason v. State, 13287.
| Decision Date | 23 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 13287.,13287. |
| Citation | 27 S.W.2d 229 |
| Parties | THOMASON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Motley County Court; J. Floyd Jordan, Judge.
Charlie Thomason was convicted of adultery, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Blanton, Blanton & Blanton, of Abilene, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is adultery; the punishment a fine of $425.
The State's principal witness testified that appellant had lived with her for several weeks, during which time they occupied the same room and habitually had sexual intercourse. The state offered in evidence some correspondence between the parties, which tended to show that their relations were intimate. Appellant offered witnesses who testified they lived in the same house in which the state's witness claimed she and appellant occupied a room together. These witnesses denied that appellant occupied a room with the state's principal witness, and testified that appellant's conduct toward said witness had not indicated that their relations were improper. Appellant was a married man. The witness referred to had secured a divorce from her husband.
Appellant contends that the testimony of the accomplice witness is not sufficiently corroborated. In view of the fact that the case must be reversed because of the errors hereinafter discussed, we pretermit a discussion of the question.
The charge was excepted to on the ground that it failed to state to the jury that appellant was presumed to be innocent until his guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. A requested instruction embodying a charge on presumption of innocence was submitted to the court. The exceptions to the charge were overruled, and the court declined to give the requested instruction. Error was committed. Dugan v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 130, 216 S. W. 161; Roberts v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 433, 239 S. W. 960; Article 705, C. C. P.
Appellant laid the predicate for the impeachment of the state's principal witness by asking her if she had not made certain statements to one Slim Goolsby concerning her relations with appellant. She answered in the negative. Thereafter Goolsby was brought to the stand and the question propounded to him in the exact language of the predicate. The state objected on the ground that the question was leading, and the court sustained the objection. It was proper for the question to be asked in the exact language of the predicate, and the court was in error in sustaining the state's objection. Kemper v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 138 S. W. 1025.
While the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. State, 21992.
...trial court's attention by a proper exception to the charge, the failure to so instruct the jury is reversible error. Thomason v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 27 S.W.2d 229, Roberts v. State, 91 Tex.Cr.R. 433, 239 S.W. 960. The question at issue here is whether a sufficient exception was reser......
-
Martinez v. State
...was not put in issue; consequently the evidence was not admissible for the purpose of affecting his credibility. See Thomason v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 27 S.W.2d 229; Ulmer v. State, 106 Tex.Cr.R. 349, 292 S. W. 245; Smith v. State, 80 Tex.Cr.R. 82, 188 S.W. 983. Hence, the instruction t......
-
State v. Laws
...Evidence that the defendant has been in prison is evidence that the defendant has committed other crimes. See Thomason v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 27 S.W.2d 229, 230 (1930); I Wharton's Criminal Evidence § 240 (13th Ed.1972). Thus, Norman's statement that Laws had been in prison for the pr......
-
Harris v. State, 23518.
...give such an instruction has been held to constitute error. See Dominguez v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 67, 147 S.W.2d 480; Thomason v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 27 S.W.2d 229; Roberts v. State, 91 Tex.Cr.R. 433, 239 S.W. 960. See also Art. 705, In the instant case appellant requested such an ins......