Case ID: sw_262/html/0744-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PERRYMAN v. STATE.
    (No. 8489.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 4, 1924.)
    Criminal law c®=»982 — Proof of conviction of misdemeanors not involving moral turpitude and charge authorizing jury to consider same on issue of suspended sentence held reversible error.
    In a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor, in which accused applied for a suspended sentence, admission in behalf of state of proof of accused’s conviction nf misdemeanors not involving moral turpitude, and authorizing jury’s consideration of such evidence as affecting the issue of suspended sentence, held reversible error.
    Appeal from District Court, Nacogdoches County; L. D. Guinn, Judge.
    Harrison Perryman was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    S.. M.‘ Adams and A. H. Moore, both of Nacogdoches, for appellant.
    
      Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Nacogdoches county of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at 1 year in the penitentiary.

By two bills of exception is presented the fact that over objection the state proved the appellant’s conviction of misdemeanors not involving moral turpitude, and that such proof was restricted by the charge of the court to its bearing on the issue of suspended sentence. Appellant had filed an application for such suspended sentence, and introduced proof that he was under 25 years of age. We have held that, proof of indictment or conviction for offenses, neither felonies nor involving moral turpitude, is not competent either for purposes of impeachment or as affecting the issue of suspended sentence. In the admission of such testimony, and in the instruction to the jury that they might consider same as affecting the issue of suspended sentence, the learned trial judge fell into error. Johnson v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 582, 241 S. W. 484; Garrison v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 541, 252 S. W. 511; Alexander v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 255 S. W. 408.

For the errors indicatéd, the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      @=oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes