Case Name: CHISUM v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1933-04-05
Citations: 60 S.W.2d 443
Docket Number: No. 15822
Parties: CHISUM v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 60
Pages: 443–444

Head Matter:
CHISUM v. STATE.
No. 15822.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 5, 1933.
Rehearing Denied May 31, 1933.
Ditzler H„ Jones, of-Uvalde, for appellant.
Lloyd W.' Davidson, State’s’ Atty., of Austin, for the’ State. ■

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Conviction for burglary; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.
This is the second appeal. The opinion upon the former appeal will be found in 50 rS.W.(2d) 321. The. matters complained of which led to a reversal upon the former appeal appear wanting in the instant ease. The facts are substantially the same, and reference therefor is made to the reported ease referred to. ' .
Appellant admitted 'his entry into the house, and that he took therefrom certain property which was identified and claimed upon the trial as that of the alleged owner. The defense rested upon two propositions: First, that the 'house was already open at the time he entered; and, second, that appellant's intent in taking the property was not that of appropriation, but of a temporary use with intent to return: it. These two defensive issues were presented in the charge to which no exceptions were taken.
Bills of: exception 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 set out testimony, followed' by a lengthy statement of the objections made, but in none of them does there appear any certificate or showing that the grounds of objection, as stated, were true;' or any facts from which might arise such deduction. Manifestly under all our authorities such bills are insufficient to present error. Levine v. State, 109 Tex. Cr. R. 331, 4 S.W.(2d) 553; Taylor v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 678, 2 S.W.(2d) 457; Busby v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. R. 293, 292 S. W. 234. Texas Jur., Vol. 4, .§ 215, cited numerous authorities.
Bill of exception No. 5 complains of the cross-examination of á defense witness who had testified to appellant's good reputation. The cross-examination was as to witness' knowledge of particular acts of misconduct on the part of appellant in reference to his being arrested in connection with an intoxicating liquor charge -and in connection with the burning of a barn. A witness to good reputation may be cross-examined as to specific instances of misconduct, as affecting the knowledge of such witness and the. consequent reliability of his testimony.
We cannot close this opinion without calling attention to the form of the statement of facts in this case, it has been exceedingly difficult for us to sift our pertinent facts' in view of the insertion of numerous and lengthy statements, arguments and objections of counsel for the defendant, of many statements made.and questions asked by tbe court, and of many statements made by the district attorney, none of which have any proper place in a narrative statement of facts. Nothing should appear in such statement of facts except the testimony of the witnesses. We have been compelled to devote much unnecessary time to the statement of facts in this case because of the manner and form in which same is prepared. There appear many questions, answers, and arguments, and we were seriously tempted to decline to consider it because of this violation of the statute.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.