Case Name: BOONE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-04-02
Citations: 215 S.W. 310
Docket Number: No. 5292
Parties: BOONE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 215
Pages: 310–312

Head Matter:
BOONE v. STATE.
(No. 5292.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 2, 1919.
On Motion for Rehearing, Oct. 15, 1919.)
1. Witnesses <&wkey;337(6) — Evidence oe oth-EE CBIME ADMISSIBLE EOE IMPEACHMENT.
In prosecution for robbery, evidence that defendant had pleaded guilty of embezzlement in a former prosecution was admissible as affecting his credibility.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;1097(4) — Materiality OE EVIDENCE NOT REVIEW ABLE IN ABSENCE OP PACTS.
In prosecution for robbery, where fact that defendant had pleaded guilty to embezzlement in former prosecution was elicited on cross-examination of defendant, court’s refusal to permit defendant on redirect examination to explain circumstances under which he pleaded guilty cannot be reviewed on appeal, in absence of the facts which were before trial court.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Witnesses @=3360 — Defendant can explain CIRCUMSTANCES ON EVIDENCE OP OTHER CRIME.
In prosecution for robbery, where fact that defendant had pleaded guilty to Embezzlement in former prosecution was elicited on cross-examination of defendant, defendant had the right, upon redirect examination, to explain the circumstances attending charge of embezzlement and his plea of guilty thereto, in order to modify or destroy the effect upon his credibility of such testimony.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;1170%(l) — Refusal to ALLOW DEFENDANT TO EXPLAIN CONVICTION OF OTHER CRIME REVERSIBLE ERROR.
In prosecution for robbery, where defendant was convicted on the testimony of accomplice witnesses and on inconclusive corroborating circumstances, and where defense rested almost alone on defendant’s testimony denying guilt, refusal to permit defendant, who had been cross-examined as to his having pleaded guilty to embezzlement in previous prosecution, to explain upon redirect examination that his guilt was technical rather than moral, in that he had accepted checks instead of currency as postmaster, and that he had pleaded guilty to shield his wife from embarrassment, held reversible error.
Appeal form District Court, Armstrong County; W. A. Wilson, Special Judge.
Claude Boone was convicted of robbery, and be appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Carl Gilliland, of Hereford, for appellant.
E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, J.
The appeal is from a conviction for robbery, with. punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for 10 years. ,
It appears from a bill of exceptions that the appellant took the stand and testified in his own behalf, though the purport of his testimony is not embraced in the bill nor is the record accompanied by a statement of facts. Complaint is made of the refusal of the trial court to permit him, on redirect-examination, to make an explanation of his reasons for having pleaded guilty of embezzlement in a .case in the federal court. The state's attorney, on his cross-examination, proved by him that he had entered such plea of guilty. The explanation that he desired to make was to the effect that the embezzlement was of funds that came in to his hands as postmaster; that'part of.it he had received in the way of personal checks from customers for money orders issued by him, which checks had not been deposited at the time his post office was inspected; and that part of the money involved in the embezzlement was drawn out of the bank by his wife without his knowledge, and that he entered the plea of guilty rather than implicate her.
The fact that he had entered the plea of guilty was admissible as affecting his credibility, and its admission in evidence is not complained of. Assuming that he had a right to make the explanation mentioned (see Branch's Ann. Texas P. O. § 94), the court is not in position to pass upon the materiality 1 of the exclusion of this explanation, for the reason that it is not informed as to what facts were before the trial court. The only relevancy of the explanation was the bearing that it might have had in modifying any unfavorable opinion of the credibility of the •appellant as a witness growing out of ¡the proof that he had pleaded guilty of embezzlement. If the explanation had been received, the fact that he had made the plea of guilty would have still been legitimately in evi; dence. Unless the appellant had, while testifying in his own behalf, given evidence which, if believed, would have presented a defense to the charge against him, or have tended to mitigate or extenuate it, his impeachment in the manner stated could have had no material bearing upon the case.
We are of the opinion that the exclusion of the evidence he offered, if error, was not of such flagrant character as to have been obviously injurious to a degree that it would require a reversal of the judgment. Jaquez v. State (App.) 19 S. W. 761; Croomes v. State, 40 Tex. Or. R. 672, 51 S. W. 924, 53 S. W. 882; Dement v. State, 39 Tex. Or. R. 271, 45 S. W. 917; Lee v. State, 44 S. W. 835; Bradford v. State, 62 Tex. Or. R. 524, 138 S. W. 118.
There being no reversible error disclosed, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<S&wkey;Eor other oases-see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
¡5&wkey;Eor otter eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes