Case Name: ASHCRAFT v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-02-03
Citations: 280 S.W. 209
Docket Number: No. 9772
Parties: ASHCRAFT v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 280
Pages: 209–210

Head Matter:
ASHCRAFT v. STATE.
(No. 9772.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 3, 1926.)
Bishop & Starnes, of Lubbock, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.

Opinion:
DATTIMORE, J.
From conviction in tbe district court of Lubbock county of transporting intoxicating liquor, with punishment fixed at three years in the penitentiary, appeal is taken.
There are four bills of exception. By one complaint is presented of tbe fact. that on his cross-examination as a witness, appellant was ashed and required to answer, oyer objection, that he had been married and divorced from his wife. No reference to this matter had been made during the trial, nor was there any issue before the court to which same was pertinent. The bill is qualified by the statement that the testimony was allowed because the accused had filed his application for suspended sentence. When this is the case, the state is allowed in any legitimate way to show the bad character of the accused, but we know of no case which holds that this may be established by proof of the fact that the accused had been married and divorced. We have held such question incompetent in other cases. The testimony was erroneously admitted.
Another bill of exceiitions complains of the fact that, while appellant was testifying as a witness, the state was permitted to prove by him, and he was compelled to answer over objection, that he had been arrested for drunkenness and for gaming a number of times. The same qualification is attached to this bill as to the one above referred to. Arrest -or conviction for such offenses does not impute moral turpitude. In many cases we have held such testimony incompetent. Perryman v. State, 262 S. W. 744, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 496; Johnson v. State, 241 S. W. 484, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 582; Garrison v. State, 252 S.W. 511, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 541; Fountain v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 474, 241 S. W. 489.
The direct testimony for the state seems very plain and positive, and it is to be regretted that matters of this kind necessitate the reversal of cases.
For the errors mentioned, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.