Case Name: Louis WARD, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1978-11-15
Citations: 591 S.W.2d 810
Docket Number: No. 53678
Parties: Louis WARD, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: DOUGLAS, J., joins.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 591
Pages: 810–820

Head Matter:
Louis WARD, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 53678.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
Nov. 15, 1978.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 28, 1979.
Motion to Withdraw Prior Opinion and Appeal Abated Jan. 9, 1980.
Bob Tarrant, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Clyde F. DeWitt, III and Kenneth W. Sparks, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION
ROBERTS, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for murder. The jury assessed the appellant's punishment at twelve years' confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.
The appellant contends, inter alia, that the trial judge erred by overruling the appellant's objections to three "have you heard" questions asked by the prosecutor during the guilt-innocence stage of the trial. We reverse.
The record reveals that on the evening of December 11, 1974, Arthur Johnson received a phone call from the deceased. Pursuant to that phone conversation, Johnson stopped by the deceased's house at 3213 Sumpter at approximately 8:45 a. m. on December 12, 1974, to lend the deceased some money. The deceased let Johnson in and locked the door. They then proceeded into the deceased's bedroom.
Approximately ten to fifteen minutes later a car drove up in front of the deceased's home. . Dolly Aught, the deceased's next door neighbor, saw the appellant get out of his car, look around, open the trunk, get something out and put it into his pocket. The appellant then walked to the deceased's front door. The appellant knocked twice. After the first knock, the deceased looked out of her bedroom window and saw the appellant. The deceased started to pick up her purse as the appellant entered the house and came into the bedroom. The appellant had a pistol in one hand. As Johnson watched, the appellant fired two shots at the deceased. The appellant then left. Johnson went outside where he encountered a crowd of neighbors who had heard the shots. At that time he stated that "[h]e shot her and I think she's dead." Aught then called the police and an ambulance.
The police investigation revealed that there had been a forced entry, that one .22 caliber "hull" was on the floor, and that a .22 caliber pistol was found close to the deceased. The .22 caliber pistol had all six bullets in it.
The defensive testimony revealed that two days after the alleged murder the appellant turned himself in to the police. The appellant took the stand and essentially testified that he fired the shots which killed the deceased, but stated that he had been threatened by the deceased. According to the appellant, the threat was made because he was breaking up with the deceased and going back to his wife and family. He also testified that when he entered the deceased's home on the day of the shooting the deceased aimed a pistol at him.
The appellant's first three grounds of error focus on the following three "have you heard" questions which were propounded to the appellant's wife by the prosecutor on cross-examination during the guilt-innocence stage of the trial:
[BY PROSECUTOR]
"Q Mrs. Ward, have you heard that on December 27, 1972, your husband, Louis Ward, was convicted of unlawfully carrying a prohibited weapon, to-wit, a pistol, and given a one hundred dollar fine?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: "May it please the Court, we object to counsel's question; one, counsel is testifying; two, it's an improper predicate for impeachment; three, the matter is immaterial and it's irrelevant; it's assuming facts not yet proven and, five, it's improper attack upon this man's character.
"THE COURT: Objection is overruled.
"Q [BY PROSECUTOR] Have you heard that, ma'am?
"A No.
"Q You didn't know that he had a pistol conviction?
"A Would you say that again, please?
"Q Did you know that he had a pistol conviction?
"A What date?
"Q It was December 27, 1972.
"A Yes, I know about that pistol.
"Q Have you heard, ma'am, that on December 8th, a Sunday, approximately four to five days before the shooting, your husband, Louis Ward, encountered Dorothy Gayden [deceased] in her place of work, Avalon Drug Store, and beat her with his fists and threatened to kill her?
. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: "Object to counsel's testimony. He's assuming facts not yet proven into evidence. It's immaterial and irrelevant and, three, it's an improper predicate for impeachment of this witness or this man's character. We strenuously object to counsel testifying from something that I don't know what he has.
"THE COURT: Objection overruled.
"Q [BY PROSECUTOR]: Have you heard, ma'am, that on Tuesday, two days before the death of Dorothy Gayden [deceased], that your husband, the defendant, used his vehicle to ram the vehicle of Dorothy Gay-den [deceased] and dented in her driver's side door?
"A I don't know anything about all that.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: "We object to this. We suggest it's hypothesis, on each of the grounds we've offered. It's the rankest form of gimmickery. We object to it.
"THE COURT: It's overruled.
"Q [BY PROSECUTOR]: Have you heard about that, ma'am?
"A I don't know anything about all of that. He wasn't that violent."
The appellant contends that although the testimony of the appellant's wife put the appellant's reputation in issue the questions did not relate to acts which were inconsistent with any character trait introduced by her testimony.
The appellant relies upon Brown v. State, 477 S.W.2d 617, 619-20 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), in which this Court stated:
"The general rule is that, as part of its cross-examination, the State is permitted to ask the character witness if he has heard of a specific act of misconduct. However, the State may not ask whether the witness had personal knowledge of the act, nor may the question be framed so as to imply that the act has actually been committed. The State, as a prerequisite for asking the question, must have a good faith belief that the act actually occurred. Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Stewart v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 480, 188 S.W.2d 167 (1945). [Footnote omitted].
*
"The only requirement is that the act be inconsistent with the character trait about which the witness has testified. See Pace v. State, 398 S.W.2d 123 (Tex. Cr.App.1965).
*
"It should be kept in mind that the purpose of the cross-examination is not to discredit the person on whose behalf the witness is testifying, but rather, the purpose is to affect the weight of the witness' testimony. Kennedy v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 215, 200 S.W.2d 400 (1947); Taliaferro v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 243, 158 S.W.2d 493 (1942); Thompson v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 491, 136 S.W.2d 840 (1940). Thus, since reputation is based on hearsay, an examination as to whether the witness has heard hearsay inconsistent with his opinion is proper."
Thus, the issue is whether the three "have you heard" questions set forth above were acts inconsistent with the character traits about which the appellant's wife testified.
The testimony of the appellant's wife focused on the behavior of the appellant before and after the appellant met and became romantically involved with the deceased. Her testimony on direct examination by the appellant's counsel, in pertinent part, was as follows:
"Q Prior to the time that you met Dorothy Gayden [deceased] about three or four years ago, what type of husband was Louis Ward?
"A He was good to me and my children.
"Q Did he work on a daily basis?
"A Yes, then he was.
"Q What type of work did he do?
"A He. was a truck driver.
"Q Does he drive a truck now?
"A Yes.
"Q Does he work e.very day?
"A Yes.
"Q Did he make good money?
"A When he was driving for Port Houston, he wasn't making as much as when he started driving for himself.
"Q Is Louis a lazy man?
"A No. He's always worked. Ever • since I knowed him.
"Q Was he given to excessive drink?
"A Pardon?
"Q Did he drink a lot? '
"A He never has been a drinker.
"Q Did he come home at night?
"A Yes.
"Q Was he a good father to the children?
"A Yes."
The appellant's counsel then tried to establish that the appellant had undergone a change after meeting the deceased, and that the deceased had called the appellant almost every night over a three-year period. The appellant's wife also testified that the deceased carried a gun. Thereafter, the following occurred:
"Q Has Louis Ward supported you and your family since December 12, 1974?
"A Yes.
"Q What kind of husband has he been?
"A Okay. Good.
"Q During the time that he was dating Dorothy Gayden [deceased] did he work regularly?
"A Yes, as far as I know he did.
"Q Has he supported your family as a breadwinner and also provided parental support as the father of his children? Here in the last eight months has he been a good daddy?
"A Yes.
"Q Has he been home regularly?
"A Yes, he been home as much as he can.
"Q Does he work?
"A Yes, when he can.
"Q Does he own his own truck?
"A Yes.
"Q A tractor and a trailer?
"A Yes.
"Q Has he been a good husband to you, ma'am?
"A Yes."
The State contends that the present case is controlled by Childs v. State, 491 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). In Childs the defendant sought probation. During the punishment stage of the trial the defendant's father testified that if the defendant was granted probation he would keep the defendant at home, employ him, supervise his conduct, and assist him in exemplary conduct. The defendant's father also testified that the defendant's conduct had been good while the defendant had been at home. On cross-examination, the defendant's father was asked if "he had heard" that his son had been indicted for robbery and for possession of marihuana and was living with a prostitute who was also a heroin addict.
The defendant contended that his father's testimony was not that of a reputation or character witness and that the questions and answers therefore were improper. This Court stated that the father's testimony was geared towards persuading the jury to grant probation to the defendant and held that:
"Appellant [defendant] may not have a witness testify about his good character traits but avoid 'placing his reputation in evidence' simply by not specifically asking whether appellant [defendant] enjoyed a good reputation in the community. . . ." Childs v. State, supra at 909.
The present case, however, is unlike Childs. The. testimony of the appellant's wife was not geared towards a showing of good, lawful character or reputation, but was directed at proving the appellant's conduct before and after his involvement with the deceased. See Odum v. State, 533 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Els v. State, 525 S.W.2d 11 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). This conduct was essential to the appellant's claim that the deceased had threatened him and pointed a gun at him when he entered the deceased's house on the day of the homicide. Thus, despite the appellant's admission in his brief that the testimony of his wife put his reputation in issue, we conclude that the appellant's wife was not a character witness for the appellant and that the questions propounded by the prosecutor were therefore improper.
However, even if the testimony of the appellant's wife can be construed as making her a character witness for the appellant, her testimony raised, at most, the appellant's reputation for being a good husband and father. The prosecutor's questions were directed to the appellant's reputation for illegal activity. The prosecutor's questions therefore did not relate to acts inconsistent with the character traits the appellant's wife testified about.
We conclude that prejudicial reversible error was committed during the cross-examination of the appellant's wife.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
. Although I dissented from the majority's disposition in Els, I am bound by the decision of this Court.
. It is well established that this Court cannot accept as facts allegations in appellants' briefs which are not supported by the record. Washington v. State, 500 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Devereaux v. State, 473 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). The appellant's admission that the testimony of his wife put his reputation in issue is not supported by the record. We therefore disregard it.
. Cf. Aldrighetti v. State, 507 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), and Salazar v. State, 494 S.W.2d 548 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). In Aldrighetti, the defendant's wife testified during the punishment stage of the trial that the defendant was a good husband, supported their children, and that she was aware of the defendant's prior convictions. We there held that no error was presented where the prosecutor, without an objection, asked the defendant's wife if she had heard that the defendant had been convicted for possession of marihuana, for "a violation of the weapon's ordinance," and for selling dangerous drugs. In Salazar, the defendant's sister testified during the punishment stage of the trial that the defendant had been a good member of her household and that she had no reason not to believe that the defendant could not finish school and live up to the terms of probation if probation was granted. We there held that the defendant's sister was a reputation witness and that several "have your heard" questions were proper.
The witnesses in both Aldrighetti and Salazar testified to matters similar to those testified to by the appellant's wife in the present case. However, both Aldrighetti and Salazar dealt with situations where punishment was the sole issue. In Aldrighetti, we noted that the questions related to prior convictions which were admissible under Article 37.07, Section 3(a), Vernon's Ann. C.C.P. In Salazar (as in Childs ), we implied that the questions properly went to impeach the witness' testimony that the defendant's reputation justified probation. Thus, neither case is controlling.
Also, the fact that a man may have committed extraneous offenses is not necessarily inconsistent with his behavior as a husband and father. At most, it may inferentially rebut the witness' testimony, but it does not impeach it. In Brown v. State, 477 S.W.2d 617, 620 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), we held that the policy behind allowing "have you heard" questions is ". . .to affect the weight of the witness' testimony." Thus, the policy behind allowing "have you heard" questions was not served by the questions asked by the prosecutor in the present case.