Ware v. State
| Decision Date | 16 December 1896 |
| Citation | 38 S.W. 198 |
| Parties | WARE v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Tarrant county; S. P. Greene, Judge.
Charles Ware was convicted of burglary, and appeals. Reversed.
Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of burglary, and given two years in the penitentiary, and appeals.
1. While the witness Gunnels was on the stand as a witness in behalf of the state, he was permitted to testify that he knew the general reputation of the defendant for truth and veracity in the community in which he lived, and that his reputation was bad, after which he was permitted, over objection, to further testify that, from that reputation, the defendant was unworthy of belief on his oath. This was objected to. There was no error in this matter, as has been frequently adjudicated in this state, and is settled adversely to the defendant's contention.
2. By bills of exception it is shown that the state was permitted to prove that defendant had stolen two pigs from one Paul Haeger; that he burglarized the carriage house of one H. C. Howell, at which time he had committed the theft of harness; that he also stole a set of harness from C. D. Brown, and some hay from Mr. Jackson, and a silver cup from Mrs. Ewing. The state was also permitted to prove, by Butler, a policeman, that, a few days after the defendant's arrest, he went with a search warrant to the defendant's house, and found a silver cup in his trunk. To all of this testimony the defendant objected, upon various grounds. We think the exceptions were well taken. When a defendant takes the stand as a witness, he places himself in the same position as any other witness in the case. He may be contradicted or sustained in the same manner and upon the same character of proof. This is the general rule. There are, perhaps, some exceptions to this rule. As was held in the Morales Case (Tex. Cr. App.) 36 S. W. 435, where a defendant was under arrest, and made a confession without being properly warned or cautioned, this character of testimony could not be used to impeach him. But that question is not involved in this case, and the general rule applies here. We have heretofore held, and still hold, that it is permissible, when tending to establish identity, intent, or to develop the res gestæ, to prove contemporaneous crimes; and this can be done, also, when the object is to show system in crime, and the defendant can be asked of this character of evidence the same as any other witness. It has also been held by this court that it can be shown, in order to attack the credibility of a defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. State
...and inquire whether or not the person on trial was or was not guilty of such offense. Menefee v. State, 149 S. W. 138; Ware v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 597, 38 S. W. 198; and other In my opinion, there are other errors in the record; but, if the above are not of a grave enough nature to cause ......
-
Alexander v. State
...]; Reed v. State, 42 Tex.Cr.R. 572, 61 S.W.2d 925 (1901); Red v. State, 39 Tex.Cr.R. 414, 46 S.W. 408 (1894); Ware, supra [38 S.W. 198 (Tex.Cr.App.1896) ]; McAfee v. State, 17 Tex.App. 135 (1884)." Murphy, supra, at 722. There, of course, is an exception if the witness makes a blanket state......
-
Brown v. State
...case in hand, and to exclude admissions and testimony of extraneous offenses, contests, controversies, and difficulties. Ware v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 597, 38 S. W. 198; Brittain v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 410, 37 S. W. 758; Morrison v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 44 S. W. 511; Woodard v. State (Te......
-
Murphy v. State
...an extraneous offense committed by the witness. Sparks, supra; Tomlinson v. State, 289 S.W.2d 267 (Tex.Cr.App.1956); Ware v. State, 36 Tex.Cr.R. 597, 38 S.W. 198 (1896). In recognition of this rationale it has long been the law of this State that proof of either mere accusations, or specifi......