Case ID: sw_272/html/0455-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BERRY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WEATHERSBY v. STATE.
    (No. 9101.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 20, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;722(3) — Argument of district attorney with reference to charge of bigamy against defendant held not erroneous.
    Argument of district attorney referring to fact that defendant was charged 'with bigamy held, not erroneous, where defendant on cross-examination admitted that he was charged with such offense. j
    2. Witnesses @=3329 — Cross-examination of witness held properly excluded as being improper method of impeachment.
    In prosecution for theft of automobile, cross-examination of prosecuting witness as to whether she had any means of support held properly excluded as being improper impeachment. . ¡
    3. Witnesses <&wkey;329 — Cross-examination to show that witness was intoxicated, as affecting his credibility, held improper.
    In prosecution for theft of automobile, asking witness on cross-examination whether he took a drink when he could get it held improper for purpose of affecting credibility of witness.
    4. Witnesses <&wkey;337(6) — -Cross-examination of defendant, whether he was under bond to await action of grand jury on charge of bigamy, in another county, held not error.
    In prosecution for theft of automobile, cross-examination of defendant, whether he was under bond to await action of grand jury in another county, held not erroneous, where defendant had admitted that he was charged with bigamy in such county. • j
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Taylor County ; W. R. Ely, Judge.
    N. G. Weathersby was convicted for theft of automobile, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Kirby, King & Overshiner, of Abilene, for appellant.
    
      Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover O. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both oí Austin, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Taylor county for the offense of theft of an automobile, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

Appellant has not favored us with a brief on any of the questions presented, but from a careful investigation of the record, we are convinced that he has enjoyed a fair and an impartial trial.

Some question is raised by bill of exception to the procedure both with reference to the impaneling of the jury and to the court’s failure to require the state to elect between the count charging theft and the one charging receiving and concealing stolen property. These matters as presented are without merit.

Appellant complains by bills of exception Nos. 2 and 3 of the argument of the district attorney wherein he referred to the fact that appellant was charged with bigamy. Appellant’s cross-examination showed that he admitted that he was, at the time of the trial, under a charge of bigamy in another county in this state, and, in view,of this condition of the record, no error is perceived in the action of the district attorney in referring to this matter.

Complaint is also made at the action of the court in refusing to allow counsel for the appellant to ask the .prosecuting witness, Annie Pruitt, if she had any means of support. The court’s action in excluding this question and the answer thereto was correct. Appellant will not be permitted to impeach a witness in this manner. The rules with reference to the introduction of testimony for the purpose of impeaching a witness are well settled in this state and ought to be adhered to in the trial of cases.

Neither did the appellant have the right to ask the witness Lang the following question on cross-examination: “You take a drink when you can get hold of it?” Appellant claims that this testimony was admissible as tending to show whether or not the witness was intoxicated or under the influence of liquor at the time he had the alleged conversation or transaction with defendant to which he had testified, and that same was admissible for the purpose of affecting' the witness’ credibility. Neither contention can be sustained.

Complaint is made because the court permitted the state’s counsel to ask, appellant on cross-examination if he was not under bond to await the action of the grand jury in Lynn county. This bill fails to show what the witness’ answer was to said question, and under the explanation of the trial court, and in view of the fact that appellant had admitted on cross-examination that he was charged with bigamy in Lynn county, there was no error in this matter.

Having carefully considered the case, we are of the opinion that there is no error shown by the record, and that the case should be in all things affirmed.

PER. CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court. 
      cgcroFor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER In all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes