Case Name: LINDSEY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-05-07
Citations: 265 S.W. 162
Docket Number: No. 8140
Parties: LINDSEY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 265
Pages: 162–163

Head Matter:
LINDSEY v. STATE.
(No. 8140.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 7, 1924.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1924.)
1. Criminal law <§=> 11701/2(1) — No harm in asking state witness if he had been a Texas ranger.
There was no harm in asking state’s witness, who testified to having bought liquor of defendant, if he had ever been a Texas ranger.
2. Intoxicating liquors <©=>226 — No error in question what witness did after getting liquor from defendant.
Question asked state’s witness as to what he 1 did after getting whisky from, defendant, who answered that he came back to town and turned it over to deputy sheriff, held to present no error.
3. Criminal law <@=>982 — Application for suspended sentence puts in issue defendant’s general reputation.
Defendant’s application for suspended sentence puts in issue his general reputation as a peaceable, law-abiding citizen, allowing state, on cross-examination of defendant’s witness, to ask as to his knowledge of such reputation.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal law <@=HI 1701/2(6) — No reversal for asking question where objection thereto was sustained.
Conviction of selling intoxicating liquor would not be reversed for asking defendant’s witness on cross-examination as to the capture of a still in defendant’s yard, where objection to the question was sustained.
5. Criminal law <@=>1111(3) — Appellant accepting bill of exceptions with qualification bound thereby.
Appellant having accepted a bill of exceptions with a qualification on it is bound thereby.
6. Criminal law 170'/2(5)—Defendant not harmed by question asked his witness.
The issue being whether defendant had sold whisky, so that it would be material to show he had a still and was at the time engaged in manufacturing liquor, he could not be harmed by his witness being asked on cross-examination as to the capture of a still in defendant’s yard.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Williamson County; James R. Hamilton, Judge.
Aaron Lindsey was convicted of violation of liquor law, and appeals.
Affirmed.
J. B. Taulbee, of Georgetown, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Williamson county of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at two year's in the penitentiary.
There is a bill of exceptions complaining that the state witness who bought liquor from appellant was asked if he had ever been a Texas ranger. We do not observe any harm from the question and answer.
We do not think the question asked state witness as to what he did after he got the whisky from appellant, presents any error. The witness stated that he left appellant and came back to Georgetown and turned the whisky over to a deputy sheriff.
Appellant's chief complaint seems to be of the fact that while his brother was testifying for the defense he was asked if defendant had not been making whisky up there and selling it, to which he replied he did not know anything about what he had been making, whereupon the state's attorney said to him, "Well, they captured a still up there in his yard, didn't they?" Objection to this last question was sustained. But it is urged that the asking of this question was harmful.. The bill is qualified by the statement that the witness was offered by the defense as a character witness, and that the purpose of the cross-examination was to test the knowledge of the witness as to violations of the law which if known to said witness would weaken the force of his testimony.'
The witness was not asked what the reputation of appellant was in regard to making or selling whisky, which is the matter announced as objectionable in Gothard v. State, and Burns v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 538, 533, 252 S. W. 508, cited and relied upon by appellant. In those cases we simply said that one on trial for a felony could not be attacked by direct proof that he had a bad reputation in the community'in which he lived for doing those things which constituted the crime charged against him. The principle involved in the question before us is very different. The state sought to test the knowledge of the brother that appellant had been making and selling whisky by asking as to matters known to the witness.
Appellant's brother was also asked if he knew appellant's general reputation in the community in which he resided for being a peaceable and law-abiding citizen. This is complained of. It appears from the record that appellant had filed an apiilication for a suspended sentence. This put his general reputation as a peaceable, law-abiding citizen in issue. Overby v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 172, 242 S. W. 213. There was no error in the state asking appellant's brother in regard to the matter under discussion. What we have just said is true of the testimony of witnesses Allen and Russell, who testified that appellant's reputation in the community in which he lived for being a peaceable, law-abiding citizen was bad.
The evidence amply supports the verdict, and seems to show without dispute that at the' time charged in the indictment witness for the state bought from appellant whisky for which he paid him $6.50.
The judgment will be affirmed.
^=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
<S=oFor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes