Case Name: HAWKINS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-02-04
Citations: 270 S.W. 1025
Docket Number: No. 8599
Parties: HAWKINS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 270
Pages: 1025–1027

Head Matter:
HAWKINS v. STATE.
(No. 8599.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 4, 1925.
Rehearing Denied April 8, 1925.)
I.Criminal law <&wkey;742(i), 743 — -Testimony of defendant and wife not conclusive, but question for jury in view of their interests.
In prosecution for unlawful manufacture Of intoxicating liquor, testimony of defendant and his wife, that he was making liquor for medicinal purposes, is not conclusive, as their interes-1 in .matter is such as rendered truth of their testimony a question for determination of jury.
2.Witnesses <®=274(l) — Cross-examination of defendant’s character witness held not improper.
In prosecution for unlawfully manufacturing liquor, asking of defendant’s character witness on cross-examination as to whether people with whom witness had talked, and upon whose statements he based his opinion, were aware that defendant was engaged in manufacture of liquor, was not error, where defendant testified and put in issue his good reputation.
3. Criminal law &wkey;>l 169(2) — Refusing further questioning as to defendant’s financial condition held not harmful error, where further inquiry would have been repetition.
In prosecution for unlawfully manufacturing liquor, where defendant’s wife testified to need of liquor for medicinal purposes and inability to purchase such liquors, refusal to permit further questioning of defendant’s financial condition was not harmful error, where further inquiry, as shown by bill of exceptions, merely called for repetition of what had been previously testified to.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;703 — Cross-examination of defendants prosecuted for manufacturing held not improper.
In prosecution for unlawfully manufacturing liquor, in which defense was need thereof for medicinal purposes, where defendant testified that he had bought 200 pounds of sugar at $9 per hundred for making alcohol, and that his financial condition would not permit purchase of alcohol, question to defendants by state’s counsel that, “You were willing to experiment on expenditure of money for-sugar?” held, not improper.
On Motion for Rehearing.
5. Witnesses <&wkey;363( I) — Motive or animus of witness subject .of inquiry.
The motive or animus which operates upon mind of witness is subject of material inquiry, in order to enable jury to weigh testimony and . determine credibility' of witness.
Appeal from District Court, Crosby County; Clark M. Mullican, Judge.
Joe Hawkins was convicted of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Bloyd A. Wicks, of Ralls, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover O. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor is the offense; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
The proof that appellant had manufactured a quantity of intoxicating liquor is conclusive. He justified it upon the ground that he was making it for medicinal purposes for the use of himself and his wife. This defensive theory was supported alone by the testimony of the appellant and his wife. Their testimony is not 'conclusive. Their interest in the matter is such as rendered the truth of their testimony a question for the determination of the jury. See Costillo v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 266 S. W. 158; Vernon's Tex. Crim. Stat. 1916, vol. 2, pp. 687 and 688.
A witness testified to the good reputation of the appellant for truth and veracity. On cross-examination he was asked if the people with whom the witness had talked and upon whose statements he based his opinion of the reputation were aware of the fact that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of liquor. As the matter is presented in the hill, we are not inclined to regard the inquiry as going beyond the scope of proper cross-examination. The appellant testified as a witness upon the stand and put in issue his reputation for truth and veracity which, in order to be material, necessarily related to the time of the trial. He was then under a'legal charge of manufacturing intoxicating liquor. The rule has a general application, and the means of knowledge of a witness who gives testimony touching the character or reputation may be tested on cross-examination. See Forrester v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 245, 42 S. W. 400; Patterson v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 169, 202 S. W. 88. Moreover, in the present case, appellant put in issue his reputation as a law-abiding citizen.
The wife of the appellant testified to the need of alcoholic stimulants for medicinal purposes and said that she and her husband were unable to purchase such liquors ; that the times were hard and that they did not have sufficient money; that he did not own any property or real estate, but was working the land belonging to his wife's father. We think the' refusal of the court to go further into the appellant's financial conditions was not harmful error. Besides, the bill of exceptions in which there is1 an attempt to complain of the refusal, to make further inquiry upon the subject appears as merely calling for a repetition of that which had been previously given.
Appellant in his testimony declared that he had bought 200 pounds of sugar at $9 per hundred pounds for the purpose of making alcohol. He testified that his financial position would not permit the purchase of alcohol. In view of this testimony, the impropriety of counsel for the state propounding on cross-examination the question, "You are willing to experiment on the expenditure of money for sugar?" is not perceived.
Regarding the evidence sufficient to. support the conviction, the judgment is affirmed.
cgr^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes