Case Name: PENDERGRASS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-24
Citations: 261 S.W. 568
Docket Number: No. 7433
Parties: PENDERGRASS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 261
Pages: 568–570

Head Matter:
PENDERGRASS v. STATE.
(No. 7433.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 24, 1923.
Rehearing Denied May 7, 1924.)
1. Witnesses &wkey;>337(6) — Testimony as to pen-dency of theft charge against defendant held proper.
In prosecution for violation of prohibition law,", where defendant stated that he had never been charged with an offense, inquiry on cross-examination as to pending charge against him in the county court for misdemeanor theft was proper, and testimony of pendency of charge was admissible as affecting his credibility as witness.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;l059(l) — Exception not showing defendant’s theory of defense did not apprise court of weight of objection.
An exception to charge that it did not affirmatively present defensive theory, but not showing what such theory was, was insufficient for review.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;728(4) — Refusal to sustain objection directed to district attorney’s argument as whole without error.
Argument of district attorney that defendant stated on direct examination that he had never been charged with other offense, but admitted on cross-examination that indictment was pending against him for stealing automobile batteries, and that, if he testified falsely about such fact, then he may be testifying falsely about every other fact, and that the fact that “defendant stole these automobile batteries has nothing to do with this case,” was not subject to general objection, but the objectionable phrase quoted required special exception.
©=oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
4.'Criminal law <&wkey;728 (4) — Specific objection to argument not reached by objection to argument as a whole.
One objecting to an extended argument as a whole, part of which is proper, cannot complain that court declined to sustain it.
<§z^>For other cases see same topic and KI2Y-.N UMBER in ali Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from District Court, Jones County; W. R. Chapman, Judge.
Earl Pendergrass was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for sale, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Lon A. Brooks, of Anson, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for tbe State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Jones county of the offense of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and his punishment 'fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
From the state's testimony we learn that appellant had agreed to sell liquor to one Davis, and that he met him at a certain point and had in his possession two quarts of whisky. Davis testified that appellant had told him the price of the liquor was $10 a gallon. Davis produced a $5 bill, and according to the testimony of the chief of police of Stamford, who witnessed the transaction, he handed the $5 bill to appellant. At this point said chief of police took part in the transaction and took charge of appellant and his whisky.
There is but one bill of exceptions in the record, which reflects appellánt's complaint of certain argument of the district attorney. In substance, the argument was a statement of the fact that appellant had testified that he had never been charged with any offense; but, when the district attorney took him on cross-examination, he admitted- that there was pending against him ah indictment for theft in the county court, and that, if appellant would lie about the fact of his having been charged with any offense, he might be giving false testimony about every other fact testified to by him. A misdemeanor theft is an offense involving moral turpitude, and the inquiry of appellant was proper, and testimony of the pendency of the theft charge was admissible, as affecting the credibility of appellant as a witness. The argument of the district attorney seems in no wise improper.
The only exception to the court's charge is that it does not affirmatively present the theory of the defense, but there is nothing in said exception showing what- the theory of the appellant is, and the court derives therefrom no information which would enable us to appraise the weight of said objection.
Finding no error in the record, an affirmance will be ordered.