Case ID: sw_253/html/0290-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J. LATTIMORE, J. HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FERGUSON v. STATE.
    (No. 7041.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 14, 1923.
    On Motion for Rehearing, May 16, 1923.
    On Second Motion for Rehearing, June 27, 1923.)
    1. Criminal law <§=>10⅞9(5) — Evidence must be filed during term of conviction to authorize review of ruling on issue of fact in motion for new trial.
    To authorize review of the trial court’s action on issue of fact in motion for new trial, evidence on which it acted must be filed during the term at which conviction was had.
    2. Criminal law <§=>857(1) — Jury’s discussion as to failure of communicant of threats to testify held within matter made known by conduct of trial.
    In a murder prosecution, discussion by the jury, after retirement, as to the failure of a party to testify who defendant had stated had communicated to him threats of deceased, such matter' being made known to the jury by the conduct of the trial, discussion thereof was not receiving other evidence as forbidden by Code Cr. Proc. art. 837, subd. 7.
    3. Criminal law <§=>673(3) — Evidence that defense witness’ general reputation for truth and veracity was bad not within rule requiring limitation in charge to impeachment.
    Evidence that defense witness’ general reputation for truth and veracity was bad does not come within the rule that where facts are testified to, which are in their nature susceptible of being used to defendant’s injury for other purposes than impeachment, it is incumbent, in response to proper objection or request, to embrace in the charge a limitation of the testimony to impeachment.
    4. Criminal law <§=>! 171 (I) — State’s argument as to deceased’s widow’s baby not being very old held to present no error.
    In a murder prosecution, where state’s counsel in argument stated that he was not permitted to prove by deceased’s wife the purpose for which deceased went to town on the night of his death, reference to the baby in arms of the widow, as not being very old, was not reversible error.
    5. Homicide <§=>188(5) — Deceased’s character established by specific acts of. violence known to defendant.
    In a homicide case in which the issue of self-defense was presented, facts known to defendant which would be relevant to his state of mind were admissible, and it was permissible for him to testify to specific acts of violence of deceased which were within his knowledge, or of which he had been informed.
    6. Homicide <§=>188(2) — Defendant not ;suggesting in examination he knew of deceased’s indictment for robbery, excluding evidence thereof not error.
    In a murder prosecution, where defendant testified but did not suggest that he had heard or knew that deceased had been indicted for robbery, or had committed such offense, excluding evidence thereof was not error.
    
      7. Homicide <§=»188(7)—Evidence that deceased bore reputation as kind and inoffensive man held competent.
    In a murder prosecution, where defendant introduced evidence that deceased had made threats against defendant’s life and that defendant had been informed that deceased was a dangerous man and that the vital shot was fired in response to deceased’s demonstration indicating an intention to execute the threat, state’s evidence that deceased bore a reputation of a kind and inoffensive man was competent.
    8. Witnesses <®=»268(6)—Sustaining objection to cross-examination of witnesses as to their knowledge of indictments against deceased for rohbery held error. ■
    In a murder prosecution, in view of highway robbery by the use of firearms being an act of violence incompatible with the peaceful and inoffensive disposition with which state’s witnesses characterized deceased, sustaining objection to cross-examination as to whether they had heard that deceased had been indicted for robbery was error.
    Appeal from District Court, Limestone County; A. M. Blackmon, Judge.
    Scotty Ferguson was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    O. F. Watkins, of Mexia, A. U. Puckitt, of Dallas, McLean, Scott & McLean, of Fort Worth, and Callicutt & Johnson, of Corsi-cana, for appellant.
    L. W. Shepperd, of Groesbeek, and R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The conviction is for murder; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for á period of five years. G. C. Gibson was shot and killed by the appellant. Appellant justified the act upon the ground of self-defense. ' There was evidence of threats against the appellant made by the deceased and communicated to him. Appellant testified that he had been advised that the deceased was a dangerous man. Both, the deceased and appellant were peace officers; both were armed. The testimony of the appellant and some of his witnesses supported the theory of self-defense.

The court instructed the jury upon the law of murder, manslaughter, and self-defense, and upon both actual and apparent danger; also upon the law of threats, both, communicated and uncommunicated.

None of the complaints of the charge or of refusal of special charges are deemed tenable.

The term of court adjourned on the 28th day of January. The bills of exceptions and evidence relating to the motion for new trial were not filed until the 29th of March following. ‘ This precludes their consideration. To authorize the review of the action of the trial court upon the issue of fact presented in the motion for new trial, the evidence upon which it acted must be filed during the,term at which the conviction is had. This is the rule stated in the, case of Black v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 185, 53 S. W. 116, and has been followed without exception in subsequent decisions. We will add, however, that if properly presented 'the motion is without merit

The point made is that the jury discussed the failure of Sam Allen to testify in behalf of the accused. Appellant testified that Allen was the chief of police and had communicated to him threats purported to have been made by the deceased Gibson. We think the fact that the jury’s discussion of the failure to call Allen as a witness would not be receiving other evidence as forbidden by article 887, subd. 7, Code of Orim. Proc. Moore v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 341, 107 S. W. 540; Wood v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 550, 217 S. W. 1037. It was a matter- which was made known to them by the conduct of the trial. The appellant testified that Allen had given him certain information. The rule of law protecting the purity of the jury’s verdict, which was contemplated by article 837. would be strained to the breaking point if the verdict was vitiated by the fact that the jury commented upon or discussed. the absence of the testimony of a witness who was named by one of the parties as being possessed of knowledge of relevant facts touching upon the matter under investigation. Public policy puts some limit upon the right of jurors to impeach their verdict. Thompson on Trials, vol. 2, § 2618; Bearden v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 271, 83 S. W. 808; Montgomery v. State, 13 Tex. App. 75.

The-witness Hall testified to the communication of threats. His general reputation for truth and veracity was challenged: Appellant complains of the charge of the court in that it did not limit the testimony of the witness; that the general reputation' of Hall was bad. We understand that where facts are testified to which are in their nature susceptible of being used to the injury of the accused for other purposes than impeachment, it is incumbent upon the. court, in response to proper objection or request, to embrace in his charge a limitation of the testimony to the purpose of impeachment. We do not understand that the evidence of the witness’s general reputation for truth and veracity is bad comes within this rule. The cases to which'appellant refers—Wilson v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 373, 39 S. W. 373; Winfrey v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 538, 56 S. W. 919—do not support appellant’s position. They relate to the well-known rule which requires the limitation of proof of extraneous matters which might, if not explained, be appropriated to an improper purpose.

Counsel for the state in his argument stated, in substance, that he was not permitted to prove by Mrs. Gibson the purpose for which the deceased went to town, on the night of his death; that he then referred to the baby in the arms of the widow of the deceased and said: “It is not very old.” As disclosed by the bill, no objection was urged to the argument; nor was any request made to withdraw it by special charge or otherwise. No surrounding facts are given which would characterize the remarks as of such harmful character as to render them per se reversible error.

After the state had introduced evidence to the effect that the general reputation of the deceased was that of a peaceable man, the appellant sought to introduce an indictment against him charging him with robbery. The rejection of this evidence is made the subject of complaint. Apparently it comes within the rule which forbids the establishment of character by the introduction of proof of specific acts or misconduct. We deem the cases cited in support of this proposition inapplicable. Nelson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 58 S. W. 107; Dodson v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 200, 70 S. W. 699; Smith v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. R. 27, 148 S. W. 699; Johnson v. State, 28 Tex. App. 17, 11 S. W. 668. These authorities support the rule often given effect in this state that, in a homicide case in which the issue of self-defense is presented, facts known to the accused which would be relevant to his state of mind are admissible in evidence. In the application of this rule, it is permissible for the accused to testify to specific acts of violence of the deceased whieh were within his knowledge or of which he has been informed.' In applying this rule in Johnson’s Case, supra, a previous indictment against the injured party for assault with intent to murder upon the accused was held competent.

In the case before us, the appellant testified but did not suggest that he had heard or knew that the deceased had been charged by indictment or otherwise for the offense of robbery, or that he had committed the offense of robbery. Appellant having no knowledge of the indictment for robbery, it is obvious that this could not have formed an element in the control of his action at the time of the homicide. The exclusion of the testimony, in our judgment, was not erroneous. See Wharton’s Crim. Evidence, § 1756.

The appellant introduced evidence that the deceased had made threats against the life of the appellant; that these threats were in mind at the time of the homicide; and the appellant having further testified that he had been informed that the deceased was a dangerous and violent man, and that the fatal shot was fired in response to a demonstration by the deceased indicating an intention to execute the threat, the evidence on the part of the state that the deceased bore the reputation of a kind and inoffensive man was competent. Russell v. State, 11 Tex. App. 296; Sims v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 642, 44 S. W. 522; Cornelius v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 177, 112 S. W. 1050; Canon v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 407, 128 S. W. 141; Rhea v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 140, 38 S. W. 1012; Menefee v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 250, 97 S. W. 486; Branch’s Ann. Tex. Penal Code, § 2095.

In several bills of exceptions it is shown that certain state witnesses testified that the deceased bore the reputation of a harmless, peaceable, and inoffensive person. This testimony was in rebuttal of the theory advanced by the appellant and supported by testimony that the deceased had made threats against him and was a violent and dangerous person. On cross-examination of these state witnesses who had testified that the general reputation of the deceased in the respect mentioned was good, they were asked if they had heard that the deceased had been indicted for the offense of robbery. An affirmative answer to this question would have been given, but the court refused to receive it upon the ground that it was not pertinent or relevant upon the issue of violence. The ruling of the court was erroneous. The knowledge of the state’s witnesses upon the subject on which they were talking —that is, the character of the deceased as a kind and inoffensive man—was a proper subject of inquiry on cross-examination. From Wharton’s Crim. Ev. p. 1013, we take the following quotation:

“So a character witness who has testified as to the good or bad character of the witness whom he is called upon to sustain or to impeach may- bet cross-examined as. to his knowledge of the acts that contradict his testimony, not for the purpose of establishing such acts, but to test the witness’s credibility, so the jury may be assisted in determining the weight to be given his testimony.”

See Forrester v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 245, 42 S. W. 400; Stull v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 547, 84 S. W. 1059; McCray v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 609, 44 S. W. 170; Hall v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 479, 66 S. W. 783; Brittain v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 597, 85 S. W. 278; also Patterson v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 174, 202 S. W. 88; Johnson v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 582, 241 S. W. 484; Waters v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 592, 241 S. W. 496.

These witnesses would have testified, according to the approved bill of exceptions, that the deceased Gibson had been indicted by the grand jury of Limestone county for the offense of highway robbery with firearms, and that they had heard the charge against the deceased discussed. Highway robbery by the use of firearms being an act of, violence entirely incompatible with the peaceful and inoffensive disposition which, according to tlie state’s witnesses in question, characterized the deceased, and the indictment for that offense against him being one in their own neighborhood, it was not only relevant but an important fact as bear-iftg upon the knowledge of the state’s witnesses who gave the testimony under discussion and their good faith in the statement. The purpose of their testimony was to show that the deceased was not a man of violent and dangerous character, and not one who might he reasonably expected to execute a threat made. This is an issue involved under the statute. Article 1143 of the Penal Code.

In refusing to permit the cross-examination of the character witnesses mentioned, tlm learned trial judge in the opinion of this* court, fell into error which requires a reversal of the judgment, which is ordered.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, J.

This case was reversed for the sole error of the refusal of the trial court to permit appellant to ask three .witnesses for the state if they had heard that deceased had been indicted for highway robbery. In a very strong motion for rehearing, the state insists that we erred in concluding this action of the trial court to be an error of such materiality as to call for a reversal. We have most carefully reviewed this contention and the authorities cited by the state and those referred to by us in our original opinion.

The complaint of appellant in regard to the refusal of the trial court to admit such testimony appears in hills of exception Nos. 17, 18 and 19. Each of these bills is identical except as to the name of the witness, and in part is as follows:

“Be it remembered that upon the trial of said cause, after the witness Bob Hanna had been permitted by the court to testify, over the objection of the defendant, that he knew the deceased,' Grover Gibson, during his lifetime, and that he knew his reputation for being a harmless or inoffensive man and a peaceable .man, then the defendant asked said witness, on cross-examination, whether or not he had heard that the deceased had been charged by indictment in one case which, at the time of his death, was pending in the district court of Limestone county, charging the deceased with highway robbery, but the state objected to the witness answering said question.” "

It is obvious from this quotation that each of said bills of exception fails to show that any of the witnesses had testified that the general reputation of deceased, in the community in which he lived, for being a peaceable, law-abiding man, was good. It is not enough for a witness to testify that he knows the general reputation of the party inquired about, but it must be made to affirmatively appear that the witness had testified that said reputation was good or bad, as the .case may be. This defect in each of said bills of exception escaped our notice upon original consideration of the case. It is manifest that none of said bills presents error in the condition in which they appear in the record. It might also be observed that each of said bills of exception further reflects the fact that the reputation inquired about, and which appears to have been known to the witness, was not .the general reputation of the deceased. A question which merely inquires for the reputation of a party does not bring itself within the comprehension of a proper inquiry. Until the bills of exception show that an issue was before the court properly, to which cross-exami^aiion Was pertinent, it would not be erroneous for the trial court to reject that which would otherwise be a proper cross-examination.

We conclude that we were in error in reversing this case because the bills of exception complaining of the rejection of the testimony were not in such condition as to properly present the contention of the appellant.

Believing ourselves to have been in error, the motion for rehearing will be granted, the judgment of reversal set aside, and an af-firmance ordered.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, J.

On February 14, 1923, the judgment of conviction was ordered reversed and the cause remanded, because of an error on the part of the trial judge in not permitting certain cross-examination of state’s witnesses relative to the general reputation of deceased. On May 16, 1923, a rehearing was granted to the state, and the reversal set aside, and the judgment affirmed on what we now believe to have been a misconception of the record. In the opinion of May 16th, reference is only made to bills of exception 17, 18, and 19. It is contended by appellant in his motion for rehearing that bills of exception Nos. 14, 15, and 16 should be considered by us in connection with the ones mentioned. In bill No. 14 it is stated that Robert Hanna at the instance of the state testified that the reputation of deceased was not that of a dangerous man, but that he was an inoffensive fellow. Bill No. 15 discloses that T. R. Wiley, a witness for the state, testified to practically the same thing, and bill Nq. 16 shows that Nat Archer also gave like testimony. Bill No’. 16 is qualified with the following explanation.

“ * * ⅜ Defendant had testified to threats on the part of ‘deceased, and had offered testimony tending to prove that deceased was such a man as was likely to execute such threats, and in rebuttal of this the state was permitted to offer testimony to the effect that deceased was not a person whose reputation was that of being a dangerous or violent person.”

Bill No. 17, which complains at the refusal of the court to permit appellant to interrogate Hanna as to his knowledge that an indictment for robbery was pending against deceased at the time of his death is explained by the court with reference to the qualification to hill No. 16, and bills Nos. 18 and 19 relating to the refusal of the court to permit appellant to interrogate Wiley and Archer upon the same subject are also approved with reference to the explanation affixed to bill No. 17. It will be seen, therefore, that appellant is right in his contention now made that the six bills of exception should be considered together, and as so considered clearly present the question in the mind, of the writer of the original opinion.

Believing the case was properly disposed of by a reversal upon its original submission, we pretermit a discussion invited by appellant in his motion for rehearing upon the question of newly discovered evidence.

The order granting the state’s motion for rehearing and ordering an affirmance'will be set aside, the original opinion reinstated, and a reversal and remanding of the cause thereunder is now ordered. 
      <&=For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     
      ®=s>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes