Case Name: Ruth Ester PRUITT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1962-01-31
Citations: 355 S.W.2d 528
Docket Number: No. 34207
Parties: Ruth Ester PRUITT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 355
Pages: 528–529

Head Matter:
Ruth Ester PRUITT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 34207.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 31, 1962.
Rehearing Denied March 21, 1962.
John Cutler, Houston, for appellant.
Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., and Lee P. Ward, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORRISON, Judge.
The offense is murder; the punishment, life.
In view of our disposition of this appeal, a statement of facts will not he deemed necessary.
The indictment alleged that the offense occurred in September, 1951, but this trial (so far as this record reveals, the first trial of this case) did not take place until June of 1961.
During the cross-examination of the first witness for the State, appellant developed that the witness had made a written statement concerning the offense to the police immediately after the incident, had read the same.in the office of the district attorney the day before the trial, and that such statement was in the possession of the prosecutor. Demand was then made for production of the statement for the purpose of cross-examination of its maker. This was denied, and counsel then requested that the statement be made a part of his bill of exception. This request was also denied.
The same procedure was followed as to the other two eye witnesses for the State except that they were recalled at the conclusion of the State's case and demand was made for the incorporation of their statements into the record as a part of his bill of exception "in order that the higher court, on appeal might be able to determine whether or not it was neces sary and relevant on cross-examination of the witness."
This presents almost the identical question as is raised in Gaskin v. State, #33,909, Tex.Cr.App., 353 S.W.2d 467. There, we quoted from Moreno v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 341 S.W.2d 455, and said that such statement should have been made available for the record for the purpose of showing injury, if there was injury, and that the refusal of counsel for the State to make available the statements or reports which appellant's counsel was not permitted to inspect, deprived appellant of the opportunity to show, if he could, that he was prejudiced by the court's refusal to require the statements to be produced.
For the errors pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.