Case Name: McLAIN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-04-26
Citations: 136 S.W. 1057
Docket Number: 
Parties: McLAIN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 136
Pages: 1057–1057

Head Matter:
McLAIN v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 26, 1911.)
1. Witnesses (§ 337 )—Impeachment—For-mer Conviction —Cross-Examination oe Accused.
In a prosecution for murder, the state may ask defendant on cross-examination if he had ever been convicted of a felony, as, where a defendant becomes a witness, he is subject to the same cross-examination as other witnesses.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 1140-1142; Dec. Dig. § 337. ]
2. Witnesses (§ 268 )—Cross-examination-Scope.
On a trial for wife murder, where a witness for defendant testified that she knew of no previous difficulty between accused and deceased, it was not error to permit the state to extract an •admission from the witness that she remembered an occasion when defendant struck deceased with a rock.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 931-948; Dee. Dig. § 268. ]
3. Homicide (§ 254 ) — Appeal—Harmless Error.
Where there was evidence that accused shot deceased in the back while she was running away from him, he cannot complain that the verdict of murder in the second degree was not supported by the evidence.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 533-538; Dec. Dig. § 254. ]
Appeal from District Court, Tom Green County; J. W. Timmins, Judge.
Dave McLain was convicted of wife murder, and lie appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
In this case appellant was indicted, charged with the murder of his wife. Upon a trial he was convicted of murder in the second degree, and his punishment assessed at 50 years' confinement in the penitentiary.
1. The first ground in the appellant's motion for a new trial complains of the action of the court in refusing to quash the indictment. The indictment in this case has been frequently approved by this court. Ringo v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 566, 114 S. W. 119.
2. The second and third grounds relate to the fact that while the defendant was on the stand as a witness the state was permitted to ask him if he had ever been convicted of a felony. When a defendant becomes a witness, he is subject to the same cross-examination as any other witness, and it is permissible to show that he has been eonvicted of an offense involving moral turpitude to affect his credibility as a witness, unless such conviction is remote. In this case, it not being shown nor objected to on the ground that it was too remote, the court did not err in permitting the question.
3. The fourth assignment urges that the court erred in permitting the witness Sallie Roberts to testify that defendant a short time prior thereto had struck the deceased, his wife, with a rock. This was a witness for'defendant, and she;had testified that she did not know of any previous difficulty between defendant and deceased, aft-erwards admitting that she did remember an occasion when defendant had struck deceased with a rock. The objections urged to this testimony are not tenable.
4. -The only other assignment of error is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. We think the evidence abundantly supports the verdict. The deceased was shot from the rear, while she was running from defendant, if the evidence of the physician and others is to he believed, and the defendant, being convicted only of murder in the second degree, has no ground for complaint.
The judgment is affirmed.