Case ID: sw_283/html/0520-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J. LA.TTIMORB, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SHIPP v. STATE.
    (No. 9900.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals, of Texas.
    March 17, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied May 12, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law c&wkey;67l — Whether testimony as to former prosecution for act of accused, discrediting to his veracity, is tow remote should be determined by trial judge.
    Relevancy of testimony of former prosecution for act of accused, discrediting to his veracity, should be determined by trial judge after investigation, in absence of jury, to learn whether act is too remote.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l 153(1) — Exercise of trial court’s discretion in receiving testimony of former prosecution for act of accused^ discrediting to his veracity, is subject to review.
    Exercise of trial court’s discretion in receiving testimony of former prosecution for act of accused, discrediting to his veracity, is subject to review and, in case of abuse, to revision.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;>l 120(8) — In presenting to appellate court question whether trial court committed error in admitting testimony as to previous indictment of accused, bill of exception should be accompanied by sufficient recital of facts to enable court to determine merits. .
    In presenting to appellate court question whether trial court committed .error in admitting testimony as to previous indictment of accused, bill of exception should be accompanied by sufficient recital of facts to enable court to determine merits, for it is not required to examine statement of facts.
    4.Witnesses &wkey;>337(6) — In prosecution of contractor of mature years for murder, evidence of'bis indictment nine years before for attempting subornation of perjury held admissible, affecting his veracity.
    In prosecution of contractor of mature years for murder, evidence of defendant’s indictment nine years before for attempting subornation of perjury held admissible, affecting his veracity, where bill of exception, complaining of its admission, did not shed any light on his surroundings, antecedents, or subsequent history.
    Appeal from District Court, Kendall County; R. H. Burney, Judge.
    S.E. Shipp was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. P. Mahaffey and E. B. Simmons, both of San Antonio, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinsoij, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.,
   MORROW, P. J.

Under an indictment for murder, appellant was convicted of manslaughter ; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.

At what period of time testimony of a prosecution for an act of the accused which is discrediting to his veracity becomes too remote to warrant its receipt in evidence seems to the writer one that cannot be arbitrarily determined by the courts. Entering into the relevancy of such testimony, there would seem . to be many circumstances. For example, the period of the life of the accused at which the discrediting act took place and his subsequent conduct are elements that must be taken into account. Supposing the accused to be'a youth, indiscretion amounting to a criminal offense committed by him ten years previous at-a time when he was a mere child of tender years wo.uld seem, in the absence of supporting testimony showing prosecutions indicating continued evil disposition, to 'be too remote. Supposing the accused to be of middle age or more, and the discrediting fact to have taken place ten years or more antecedent to the time the proof of it was offered in evidence, his freedom from accusations of crime during the intervening space of time would seem of weight upon the relevancy of the proof. In the due administration of justice, the idea of reform — the fact that an individual once bad may have amended his ways — is not to be ignored by the courts. One may have been bad and become good, or may have borne an excellent character and a good reputation at no distant time and had become profligate and criminal in his tend-eneies. This court has oftentimes been called" upon to consider, and has considered, the admissibility of testimony to the effect that the accused had been charged with an offense at some time previous to that for which he was on trial, but it has never, so far as the writer is aware, undertaken to fix arbitrarily and absolutely a space of time which would characterize such testimony as too remote. In the opinion of the writer, the nature of things precludes such a declaration. The receipt of such testimony should primarily be determined by the trial judge after an investigation, in the absence of the jury, to learn whether, under the ascertainable facts, the act is too remote. The exercise of such discretion is subject to review, and, in case of abuse, to be revised.

Prom the bill of exceptions we get this information and no more: Appellant, after testifying as a witness, was asked upon cross-examination if in Bexar county in 1916 he had not been indicted for the offense of attempting a subornation of perjury. Objection was made upon the ground that it was too remote to be relevant, either upon the credibility of the appellant or as bearing upon his plea for a suspended sentence. The objection was overruled and exception reserved. Prom the information conveyed in the bill of exceptions, it seems clear that this court would not be able- to determine that the receipt of the testimony was not proper. In order to determine whether error was committed in the receipt of the evidence, this court is not called upon to make an examination of the statement of facts. The bill of exceptions should be accompanied by a sufficient recital of the facts to enable the court to determine its merits. See Ard v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 545, 276 S. W. 263; Coulson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 277 S. W. 135; Carter v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 277 S. W. 395; Pombo v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 279 S. W. 263. In each of these eases will be found citations of many earlier announcements of this court.

The conclusions stated concerning the subject of remoteness are deduced from an examination of the precedents in this and other states., We have. taken particular note of those to which we have been referred by the appellant.

The Bowers Case (Tex. Cir. App.) 71 S. W. 284, quotes from 1 Greenl. Ev. (16th Ed.) p. 925, § 495, as follows:

“The examination being governed and kept within bounds by the discretion of the judge, all inquiries into transactions of a remote' date will, of .course, be suppressed; for the interests of justice do not require that the errors of any man’s life, long since repented of, and forgotten by the community, should be recalled to remembrance and their memory be perpetuated in judicial documents at the pleasure of any future litigant. The state has a deep interest in the inducements to reformation held up by the protecting veil which is thus cast over th.e past offense of the penitent. But where 'the inquiry relates to transactions com-, paratively recent, bearing directly upon the present character and moral principles of the witness, and therefore essential to the due estimation of his testimony by the jury, the learned judges have of late been disposed to allow it.”

Applying the principle stated in the text to the facts in hand, it showed that the proffered testimony related to an offense committed by the accused 15 or 17 years antecedent to the trial, and the court held that the evidence should have been rejected.

In Dyer’s Case (Tex. Cir. App.) 77 S. W. 456, in reversing the case upon other grounds, the court remarked that upon another trial a prior pífense committed 20 years before should not be proved.

In Winn’s Case, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 538,113 S. W. 918, the evidence related to an offense some 13 .or 14 years prior to the trial. In holding the rejection of this testimony error, the court said:

“Testimony of this character after a long lapse of years should not have been introduced, where there was nothing in the record to show that defendant has not reformed. In other words, the law will not permit the early indiscretions of a witness to be brought .into requisition. to besmirch and becloud his sub-, sequent life.”

In Leach’s Case, 78 Tex. Cr. R. 55, 180 S. W. 122, the extraneous crime was committed when the accused was about 15 years of age, and about 12 years before the trial. Considering that at the time the offense was committed the accused was a mere boy, and the intervening space a period of 12 years, and there being nothing' in the bill to show that the accused had not1 reformed, the testimony was characterized as too remote.

The Marks Case (Tex. Cr. App.) 78 S. W. 512, seems without bearing upon the subject, inasmuch as the extraneous crimes proved were misdemeanors, not involving moral turpitude. The court properly held them inadmissible.

Bullington’s Case, 78 Tex. Cr. R. 187, 180 S. W. 679, as we understand it, is but confirmatory of the preliminary views expressed by the writer of this opinion; namely, that before receiving testimony which it is claimed is too remote, the court should ascertain in a preliminary way the grounds upon which its admission or rejection is sought, and, where it is made to appear that after an offense committed 14 years before the trial the accused has been charged with no act incompatible with an upright life, proof of the prior conduct should be rejected as too remote.

In the present ease, as stated above, the bill of exceptions gives no such information as would enable us to determine that the trial court was in error in receiving the testimony. We learn from the statement of facts that the appellant was a man of mature years, though his exact hge is not revealed. He had been a contractor, however, for 14 years. According to the state’s testimony, while the appellant and Basilo Senches, the deceased, were drinking whisky together, appellant suddenly tore the shirt of the deceased, who then used an epithet toward the appellant, and soon thereafter the appellant shot him. Appellant testified in his own behalf to circumstances tending to mitigate the offense and to raise the issue of self-defense.

We have observed nothing in the statement of .facts which would lead us to the conclusion that in the cross-examination of the appellant of which complaint is made there was a deflection from the rules of evidence as they have been heretofore applied in this state and in other jurisdictions. See Underhill’s Grim. Ev. (3d Ed.) § 142.

The judgment is'affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LA.TTIMORB, J.

In our former opinion

we discussed at length what should appear in a bill of exceptions complaining of the remoteness in time of offered testimony of former criminal charges or convictions whose purpose was to affect the credibility of a witness. 'The contention here is that a mere objection that the felony charge made against the witness was at or near 9 years before the. trial, was enough to justify a holding that it was too remote. Nothing in the bill sheds light on the surroundings, antecedents, or subsequent history of the witness thus attacked. We think this matter correctly decided in our former opinion, but cite additional authorities on the question of remoteness. In Scoville v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 77 S. W. 792, 9 years was held not too remote. In Couch v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 279 S. W. 825, 8 years was so held. In Brown v. Perez, 89 Tex. 282, 34 S. W. 725, under the facts of that case, 30 years was held not too remote. In Bibb v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 117, 215 S. W. 312, a period beginning 8 years prior to the trial, and extending further back, was held not too remote.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      <@r=>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes