Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 02 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 27418,27418 |
| Citation | 275 S.W.2d 798,161 Tex.Crim. 152 |
| Parties | Ray WILSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Carl Cannon, Groesbeck, Bowlen Bond, Teague, for appellant.
Joe Schultz, Jr., former County Atty., Mexia, Lewis M. Seay, County Atty., L. L. Geren, Sp. Prosecutor, Groesbeck, Leon Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for murder without malice; the punishment, five years' confinement in the penitentiary.
The evidence shows that the deceased was the wife of appellant and died as the result of being hit on the head by a rock thrown by him, while appellant, the deceased and some young children were driving a cow.
It was the State's theory that appellant intentionally threw the rock at the deceased which theory was supported by the testimony of two of the young children who were present at the time of the tragedy and testified for the State.
Appellant interposed the defense of accident and, as a witness in his own behalf, denied that he threw the rock at his wife and testified that he threw the rock at the cow and had no intention of hitting his wife.
The State presented witnesses who testified to certain previous acts and conduct of appellant towards his wife which would reflect that appellant had been harsh and unkind to her. Appellant denied such acts and conduct and offered the testimony of several of his neighbors and acquaintances who testified that they were acquainted with appellant and the deceased during her lifetime and, in their opinion, the two were devoted to each other and were a congenial couple.
Appellant predicates his appeal upon seven alleged points of error.
In view of the disposition of the case, it will only be necessary to discuss Point No. 5 by which appellant contends that the court erred in admitting impeaching testimony of appellant's witness, E. C. Wilson, without first having laid a proper predicate therefor.
The record shows that appellant called the witness, E. C. Wilson, and after testifying on direct examination, was asked the following questions on cross-examination by the State's counsel:
'Mr. Schultz: Your Honor, we----
'By the Court: I am going to overrule your objection.
'By Mr. Cannon: To which we except.'
After the witness Wilson denied making the statement inquired about, the State offered as a witness Mrs. Bill Seastrunk, who testified on direct examination as follows:
'Q. I will ask you, Mrs. Seastrunk, if some ten or twelve days ago you had occasion to talk with Eddie Wilson? A. I did, yes.
'Q. Don't answer this next question until the Lawyer has a chance to object. On that occasion did Mr. Eddie Wilson tell you of an occurrence that happened when he was helping Ray Wilson build a fence?
'By Mr. Bond: Just a minute, we object to that question because there is no predicate laid for it. The Court will remember he asked, 'didn't you tell somebody', not no proper predicate----.
'By the Court: Overrule your objection, Mr. Bond.
'By Mr. Bond: Note our exception.
* * *
* * *
'By Mr. Schultz: I will withdraw that question and ask you Mrs. Seastrunk, if in substance Eddie Wilson made the following statement to you: that he was helping Ray fix a fence and that Doris Wilson was down there with them, that Ray got mad at Doris and cursed her and knocked her down and chunked at her?
'By Mr. Bond: We renew our objection for the reason heretofore stated.
'By the Court: All right, you may have your bill. Overrule your objection.
You may answer the question Mrs. Seastrunk.
We conclude that a proper predicate had not been laid to permit the State to impeach the witness Wilson and that the court erred in allowing the witness, Mrs. Seastrunk, over objection, to testify that the witness Wilson had made a statement contradictory to that which he had denied making, because 'the witness Wilson was not apprised of the time, place or person to whom the statement is alleged to have been made, when being questioned whether he made such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thrash v. State, 46773
...the time, place, the person to whom the alleged statement was made, and the circumstances of the alleged conversation. Wilson v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 152, 275 S.W.2d 798; Marshall v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 384 S.W.2d Appellant's reliance on Corley v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 504, 272 S.W.2d 354, i......
-
King v. State
...S.W.2d 510; Watkins v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 559, 223 S.W.2d 24; Robinson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 6, 238 S.W.2d 193 and Wilson v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 152, 275 S.W.2d 798; Tex.Cr.App., 289 S.W.2d We find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and overrule appellant's contention th......
-
Huffman v. State, 31436
...place, time, and person to whom the statement was made. McCormick and Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, § 693 (2nd Ed.), Wilson v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 152, 275 S.W.2d 798 (1955); Coons v. State, 215 S.W.2d 628 (Tex.Cr.App.1948). Therefore, since Cline was asked only if he had ever made the state......
-
McWilliams v. State, 46326
...place and person to whom it is claimed the contradictory statement was made. 1 Branch's Ann.P.C., § 201, citing Wilson v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 152, 275 S.W.2d 798 (1955); see Huffman v. State, 479 S.W.2d 62 ...