Case ID: sw_273/html/0864-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BAKER, J. MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LITTLEJOHN v. STATE.
    (No. 9083.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 20, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied June 17, 1925.)
    I.. Witnesses <@=3270(2) — Refusal to permit accused to interrogate witness as to witness’ brother being charged with violations of liquor law held not error.
    Refusal to permit accused to interrogate witness as to his (witness’) brother being charged with violations of liquor law held not error, in absence of showing of any connection of witness’ brother with instant prosecution.
    2. Witnesses <&wkey;>337(6) — Questioning accused as witness, as to whether he was not under indictment for selling whisky in two other cases, and if he had not been convicted in four liquor cases, held not error.
    In prosecution for selling liquor, questioning accused as witness, as to whether he was not under indictment for selling whisky in two other cases, and if he had not been convicted in four liquor cases, heldi not error, where accused theretofore volunteered information as to such convictions, and to having served in the penitentiary. i
    3. Witnesses &wkey;>337(5) — Permitting prosecution to interrogate accused’s witness as to other indictments against accused held not reversible error.
    Permitting prosecution to interrogate accused’s witness as to other indictments against ■accused heldi not reversible error, where the testimony as to such indictments had previously been received, and the court limited such testimony to impeachment purposes, and to question of credibility of accused’s testimony.
    4. Witnesses <&wkey;36I (I) — Admission of testimony, showing good 'reputation of prosecuting witness for truth and veracity, held not error.
    Admission of testimony, showing good repu-. tation of prosecuting witness for truth and veracity, held, not error, in view of severe cross-examination to which accused put such witness on alleged contradictory statements made by him in former trial of the case.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    5.Criminal law <&wkey;>726 — Remarks of prosecution, in argument to jury, adverting to color - of witness, held not ground for complaint, being invited.
    In prosecution of a negro for selling intoxicating liquor, where accused’s counsel, in argument to jury, stated that he would rather believe accused and his negro witness than the prosecuting witness of the state, a white person, remarks of district attorney in his argument that it was jury’s privilege to believe any witness, whether black or white, but that he did not believe that jqry would disregard the white boy’s testimony and take the negro’s in preference, without some good reason better than accused’s counsel had given in his argument, heldi not ground for complaint because invited by remarks of accused’s counsel.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Lamar County; R. L. Lattimore, Special Judge.
    Arthur Littlejohn was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Patrick & Eubank, of Paris, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover 0. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was charged and convicted in the district court of Lamar county for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment ássessed at five years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

By bill of exception No. 1, appellant complains of the action of the trial court in refusing to permit Mm to interrogate the prosecuting witness Clyde Lewis relative to his brother being charged with and convicted of violations of the liquor law. We perceive no error in the action of the court in this particular, from the bill" and the qualification made .thereon by the court; there being nothing in said bill showing any connection of the witness’ brother with the transaction under investigation.

There is complaint made to the action of the court, as shown by bill of exception No. 2, in permitting the state’s attorney to ask defendant while the defendant was a witness, on cross-examination, if he was not then under indictment for selling whisky in two other cases, and if he had not been convicted in four liquor cases in that court theretofore. The court’s explanation of this bill, which was accepted by counsel for appellant and became a part thereof, shows the defendant volunteered the information that he had been convicted in four different eases in that court for liquor violations, and that the only objection raised to the testimony in this particular was to the manner and method of questioning the witness. This court has repeatedly held that you can interrogate the defendant while a witness upon the stand as to other felonies charged against him for the purpose of impeaching his testimony and to affect his credibility. This court has also held that it is improper to go into the details of such eases, but in this particular instance we see no error from the qualification made on the bill by the court, as it appears that said witness volunteered said information as to his conviction and to having served' said time in the penitentiary.

The appellant complains of the action of the court in permitting the state’s counsel to ask the witness Beard, the witness for the defendant, on cross-examination, if said witness did not testify on a former trial of this case, and if he did not say that the defendant was sick on November 20, when the defendant was charged with selling liquor to one Lillard Hill, and to the action of the said attorney in reading the names and the places to the said witness from said indictments; said objection being that the jury might consider same as original evidence of guilt. This testimony in effect was already in, as heretofore shown, relative to the defendant being indicted, and we fail to see any error in the action of the court in this particular. Furthermore, the charge of the court limited the testimony to the other alleged charges of crimes and conviction of the defendant to impeachment purposes and to affecting the credibility of the defendant’s testimony which should have removed all doubt from the minds of the jury as to the purpose for which such testimony was admitted.

Appellant complains of the action of the court, as shown by bill of exception No. 4, in permitting the state’s attorney to introduce witnesses showing the good reputation of the prosecuting witness Glyde Lewis, because it is stated that the state could not bolster up the testimony of said Lewis by proving his good reputation for truth and veracity. The court, in qualifying this bill, states that the defendant’s counsel, on cross-examination of said witness Lewis, who was a hoy 19 years of age, asked said witness about his brother, Dock, and if he (said witness) was not a witness in his brother’s case, and if he had not been summoned in said case, and asked said witness about having been arrested by the officers himself for having liquor in his possession, and if he hadn’t made a trade or offered a trade by the state that, if he would tell where he got the whisky, they would let him go, which the witness denied, and asked the witness relative to his father having been arrested for bootlegging, and gave the witness a severe cross-examination on alleged contradictory statements he had made in testifying on a former trial of this case. We believe from the bill and the explanation thereof, and under the circumstances of this particular case, that the state was authorized to introduce evidence of the general reputation of said witness for truth and veracity. In Branch’s P. C. § 184, it is stated:

“Either side is entitled to prove the general reputation for truth of a witness who has been impeached, or sought to be impeached, by proof of contradictory or partly contradictory statements” — citing many cases, including Dixon v. State, 15 Tex. App. 272; Graham v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 109, 123 S. W. 694; Myers v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 101 S. W. 1000; Dickson v. State, 66 Tex. Cr R. 270, 146 S. W. 916.

Counsel for appellant complains of the action of the court in permitting the district attorney in his closing argument to the jury to state:

“I want to know in all good conscience if time is coming in Lamar county, Tex., when 12 good white men like you will sit on the jury and believe 3 or 4 black negroes in preference to one good white boy.”

The qualification made to this bill by the court states that counsel for the appellant in. his argument to the jury stated:

“It is true in this case that the defendant is a negro, and that his witnesses are also ne-groes, but I would rather believe them than the white boy, Clyde Lewis, any time and in any manner. Just look at old black Tom Beard, a more truthful negro never lived; compare him with Clyde Lewis, who is white only in color. * * * A year from now you will know which' one is telling the truth about this transaction and you will find it to be these negroes instead of Clyde Lewis.”

And several other similar statements included in the explanation of the court, and, in reply to that, the court states that the district attorney stated to the jury that it was their privilege to believe any witnesses in the case, whether black or white, but that he did not believe that 12 men like them in, Lamar county- would disregard the white boy’s testimony, as the defendant’s counsel called him, and take the negroes’ testimony in preference, without some good reason, better than the defendant’s counsel had given in his argument.

We,see no error committed in this particular, and we think that the argument made by appellant’s counsel authorized the reply made by the attorney for the state.

After a careful examination of the record in this case, we are of the opinion that the defendant has had a fair trial, and no reversible error is shown, and that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

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.

On Motion for -Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

An examination of the motion for' rehearing leaves us of the opinion that on the original hearing the proper disposition was made of the case.

We understand that the rule stated in Walter’s Case (Tex. Or. App.) 72 S. W. 401, was not transgressed. That ease but exemplified the familiar rule that, when one is on trial for an offense, the proof of other offenses committed by him is not to be received, unless brought within some of the exceptions to the rule excluding such testimony. The rule does not exclude, but, as announced by many of the decisions of this court, expressly sanctions the proof of other offenses of the grade of felony or involving moral turpitude upon cross-examination of the witness, whether the accused or not, for the purpose of discrediting his testimony. See Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C., § 168, and many cases therein collated; also Lights v. State, 21 Tex. App. 313, 17 S. W. 428.

In the present case, the evidence of other offenses, both as to the appellant and his witnesses, was adduced upon cross-examination. In the appellant’s cross-examination of the witness Lewis, many misdeeds and self-contradictions were imputed to him; also the commission of criminal acts including a charge of violating the prohibition laws. In receiving evidence supporting the witness as to his good reputation for truth and veracity, we are of the opinion that the learned trial judge is sustained by the authorities. See Coombes v. State, 17 Tex. App. 264; Farmer v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 270, 33 S. W. 232; Luttrell v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 659, 51 S. W. 930.

According to the bill of exceptions complaining of the argument of counsel, the question of the color of the witness was first adverted to by the appellant’s counsel. If the remarks criticised are properly the subject of complaint, they are excusable upon the rule that they were invited. See Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C. p. 205, and numerous cases there cited, including Baker v. State, 4 Tex. App. 229; Pierson v. State, 21 Tex. App. 60, 17 S. W. 468.

The motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      <§=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes