Case ID: sw_174/html/0609-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SHEPHERD v. STATE.
    (No. 3452.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 3, 1915.)
    1. Intoxicating Liquors <©=3239 — Oitenses —Prosecution—Instruction.
    Where the testimony, in a prosecution for violating the local option law, raised the question of agency, and that question was not covered by the charge, it was error to refuse a requested instruction thereon.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 331-347; Dec. Dig. <©=3 239.]
    2. Witnesses <©=3359 — Impeachment—Cross-Examination oe Accused — Former Indictment.
    It is error to require a defendant, charged with violating the local option law, to testify that he had been previously indicted for a similar offense.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 1140-1149; Dec. Dig. <⅞=350.]
    Appeal from San Augustine County Court; Wm. McDonald, Special Judge.
    Pleas Shepherd was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law; his punishment being assessed at 20 days’ imprisonment in the county jail and a fine of $25.

Three questions are presented: First. Overruling the application for a continuance, which is deemed unnecessary to be considered in the light of a reversal upon two other questions. The absent testimony can he secured upon another trial. Second. The question of agency, which was raised by the testimony, and which was not charged by the court and the special instructions refused. This was error under all the authorities. Third. Defendant, over objection, was required to testify he had been previously indicted for violation of the local option law. Objections were urged, and this matter is presented for reversal. This was error. See Branch’s Grim. Law, § 566, for collation of authorities. Some of these it may be well enough to cite: Tyrell v. State, 38 S. W. 1011; Stewart v. State, 38 S. W. 1144; Lee v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 51, 73 S. W. 407; Jennings v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 147, 115 S. W. 587; Marks v. State, 78 S. W. 512; Hays v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 149, 82 S. W. 511.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      <®=>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes