Case ID: sw_200/html/0169-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JENNINGS v. STATE.
    (No. 4761.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 16, 1918.)
    1. Witnesses <@=>350 — Impeachment — Accusation of Particular Offense.
    The offense of pursuing the business of selling intoxicating liquor in prohibited territory being a felony, proof on cross-examination of the defendant that he had been indicted therefor was legitimate for impeachment purposes.
    2. Witnesses <@=>345(2) — Impeachment oe Defendant — Former Accusation of Crime.
    Proof that defendant had been charged in the federal court with the sale of intoxicating liquors without a license, such crime being a misdemeanor not imputing moral turpitude, was not admissible for the purpose of impeachment.
    Appeal from Smith County Court; W. R. Castle, Judge.
    Jumbo Jennings was convicted of selling liquor in prohibition territory, and he appeal*^
    ^Reversed.
    E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, J.

Appellant was convicted of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor in territory where the sale was prohibited by law. The offense was a misdemeanor, and the punishment fixed at a fine of $25 and 20 days’ confinement in the county jail. The sale was proved by the state, denied by appellant, and the defense of alibi interposed. Tliese -issues were submitted to tbe jury iu a charge which was not complained of.

The offense of pursuing the business of selling intoxicating liquor in prohibited territory being a felony, proof on cross-examination of appellant that he 'had been indicted therefor was legitimate for impeachment purposes, and his. bill of exception complaining thereof is without merit. Branch’s An. P. C. p. 101, § 167, and cases cited.

Proof that appellant had been charged in the federal court with the sale of intoxicating liquors without a license was not admissible for the purpose of impeaching him. It was a misdemeanor not imputing moral turpitude, and proof of this class of offenses has been frequently held inadmissible for the purpose of impeachment. Branch’s An. P. C. pp. 102, 103, § 169; Shepherd v. State, 76 Tex. Cr. R. 307, 174 S. W. 609; Hightower v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. R. 258, 165 S. W. 186; Johnson v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. R. 441, 149 S. W. 165; Clay v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 402, 144 S. W. 280; Kirksey v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 298, 135 S. W. 124; Hightower v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 109, 131 S. W. 324; Jennings v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 147, 115 S. W. 587; Marks v. State, 78 S. W. 512; Lee v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 51, 73 S. W. 407; Stewart v. State, 38 S. W. 1144; Tyrrell v. State, 38 S. W. 1011; Merriwether v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 439, 116 S. W. 1150, in which case Judge Ramsey, passing on the question, states the rule as follows:

“We understand the rule to be that charges preferred in a legal manner, and certainly convictions of crime which imply moral turpitude, are receivable in evidence as affecting the credibility of a witness or a defendant; but this rule has not been applied, we think, and should not be applied, in respect to convictions which do not involve moral obliquity, or of the grade of felony, or such as are not of the class that the law recognizes as involving moral turpitude.”

The admission of the illegal testimony mentioned- requires a reversal of the lower court, which is ordered.