Case ID: sw_199/html/0289-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PRENDERGAST, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TAYLOR v. STATE.
    (No. 4707.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 28, 1917.)
    1. Witnesses <§=>337(6) — Impeachment.
    The rule that accused’s testimony may be impeached_ by showing previous convictions for theft or misdemeanors involving moral turpitude, is inapplicable to a previous conviction for fighting and disturbing the peace, since such offense involves no moral turpitude.
    2. Cbiminai, Law <§=>1169(11) — Evibence — Impeachment.
    In a theft prosecution, admitting testimony regarding previous convictions of accused constitutes reversible error, where' accused did not testify.
    3. Cbiminai, Law <§=>539(2) — Evidence—Impeachment.
    In a theft prosecution, incriminating testimony given by accused on previous trial for theft is admissible.
    Appeal from Corporation Court, Bowie County; J. K. Linbarger, Recorder.
    Claude Taylor was convicted of theft and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    T. N. Graham and W. T. Williams, both of Texarkana, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, J.

Appellant was convicted of the theft of some automobile inner tubes and his ■ punishment assessed at six months in jail. Appellant earnestly contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction, in view of the fact that the evidence was wholly circumstantial. However, this court does not pass upon the question because the cause must be reversed on another ground.

It seems, that appellant was first prosecuted for ordinary theft and on that trial he testified. When prosecuted for this offense he did not testify. The court, over his objections, permitted the city attorney to testify what appellant testified on said other trial to this effect, that he had been previously convicted and fined in several criminal misdemeanor eases involving fighting and disturbing the peace, and that he had been tried, convicted and worked his fine out in Miller county, Ark., on the charge of theft of shoes. The law is that when a party himself testifies he can be impeached by showing that he has been previously convicted for theft or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, but that such offenses as fighting and disturbing the peace do not involve moral turpitude and cannot be introduced for the purpose of impeaching. However, any such testimony, when admissible, is for impeachment of an accused only, and as the accused in this instance did not testify at all in this case the admission of said testimony against him presents reversible error. Of course, any incriminating testimony given by him in the other caSe could be proved on the trial of this case and as such would be admissible.

Eor the errdr in the admission of this testimony, under the circumstances, the case is reversed and the cause remanded. 
      <§=>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes