Case Name: COPELAND v. STATE
Court: Texas Commission of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-06-18
Citations: 263 S.W. 271
Docket Number: No. 8291
Parties: COPELAND v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 263
Pages: 271–272

Head Matter:
COPELAND v. STATE.
(No. 8291.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 18, 1924.)
1. Vagrancy <®=>3— Fact that defendant sold liquor could not be" proven by reputation of his home.
Testimony of witnesses that from what th^y heard they were of opinion that reputation of defendant’s, home was that of place where liquor was sold'was inadmissible since fact that one sells liquor cannot be proven by reputation of his home.
2. Vagrancy <@=>3 — Evidence ef defendant’s vagrancy prior to time charged held inadmissible.
In a prosecution charging defendant with vagrancy, from May 23 to June 12, 1923, evi-. denee that prior to September, 1922, defendant had the reputation of being a loafer and bootlegger, was inadmissible, as being too remote and shedding no light upon any issue involved in case.
3. Criminal law ¡@=>369(1) — Evidence that defendant had sold liquor prior to time of alleged vagrancy held inadmissible.
Conversation in which defendant stated that he hhd sold intoxicating liquox-, but that he had quit and did not intend to sell any more, was inadmissible, where it occurred prior to time that defendant was alleged to be vagrant.
4. Vagrancy ¡@=>3 — Evidence of defendant’s association with prostitutes held inadmissible.
Evidence that defendant was sometimes seen at house which had reputation of being place of prostitution, and that woman who kept place had paid vagrancy fine, was inadmissible; defendant not being charged with vagrancy predicated on his association with prostitutes.
Appeal from Young County Court; W. H. Reeves, Judge.
Fat Copeland was convicted of vagrancy, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Binkley & Binkley, of Graham, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for tbe State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the county court of Young county of va- graney, and Ms punishment fixed at a fine of $50.
The complaint and information contain four counts; the first charging that appellant was a vagrant, a person leading an idle, immoral, and profligate life, and had no property and was able to work and did not work. The second count charged that appellant was a person able to work.and did not work, and that he had no property for his own personal support and no visible and known means of making a fair and reputable livelihood. The third count charged that appellant was a vagrant and an able-bodied person then and there living without employment or labor and without having any visible means of support. The fourth charged that appellant was a vagrant, in that he sold to persons unknown vinous, alcoholic, malt, and spirituous liquors. On the trial appellant reserved four bills of exception complaining of objectionable testimony. The first presents his objection to testimony of witnesses to the fact that from what they had heard in and around Oil City they were of the opinion that the reputation of defendant's home was that of a place where intoxicating liquor was sold. This testimony was objectionable. The fact that one sells intoxicating liquor cannot be proven by showing the reputation of his home.
Another bill complains that a deputy sheriff was permitted to testify that appellant lived . in Breckenridge, Tex., prior to September, 1922, and had the reputation of being a loafer and bootlegger. Appellant wa£j charged wifh being a vagrant during the period extending from May 23 to June 12, 1923. The evidence just mentioned was too , remote and also inadmissible because it shed no light upon any issue involved in the instant 'case. Appellant's reputation prior to September, 1923, in Breckenridge, Stephens county, could serve no legitimate purpose as affecting any charge involved in any of the four counts mentioned in the complaint charging appellant with vagrancy in Young county in the spring of 1923.
Another bilJL of exceptions complains, of the fact that the state was permitted to introduce in evidence a conversation had by a witness with appellant in which the latter stated during the first week in April, 1923, that he had sold intoxicating liquor, but that he had quit and did not intend selling any more. This conversation occurred some six weeks before the beginnihg date of the period alleged as that in which appellant was a vagrant. It referred to some transactions had by appellant at some time prior thereto; the date not being mentioned. Such conversation could shed no light on the status of appellant during the period in which he is charged with being a vagrant. It should not have been allowed to go before the jury.
By another witness proof was offered of the fact that the Liberty rooming house, where appellant was sometimes seen, had the reputation- of being a bawdyhouse and one where prostitutes resided, and that the woman who kept said house had paid a vagrancy fine. Appellant was not charged with vagrancy predicated on his association with prostitutes, and the testimony in question was inadmissible.
For the errors mentioned, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
<@n=For other oases see s^me topic and KEY-N UMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes