Court Opinion

ID: 3923536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 09:50:10.007749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:54.705524
License: Public Domain

Appellant insists in his motion for a rehearing that we made an incorrect appraisal of his bill of exception No. 4. Our examination of the matter in the light of appellant's motion convinces us that his contention is well taken. The bill shows that Ted Jones, a witness for appellant, had testified to material facts bearing on the issue of self-defense; that upon cross-examination of said witness by the state he was asked if he had not told Officer Timmons that appellant *Page 263 
told him, Jones, that he, appellant, was going to kill him a negro by Christmas; that the witness Jones denied making such statement to Timmons; and that Timmons was then placed upon the stand by the state and testified that Jones made the statement to him. As shown by the bill appellant was not present at the time Timmons had the conversation with Jones. Moreover, the bill shows that the matter had not been gone into by appellant. In our original opinion we discussed the matter complained of in this bill in the light of appellant's objection that the testimony was improper in that it was an effort on the part of the state to impeach the witness on an immaterial and collateral matter. We note now that the bill shows that appellant also objected to the testimony on the ground that it was hearsay. This objection was well taken. The testimony was hearsay and was inadmissible even for the purpose of impeaching the witness. See Mitchell v. State, 204 S.W. 767. It is obvious that the facts elicited from the witness Timmons, under the guise of impeaching the witness Jones, were calculated to prejudice appellant.
We have not undertaken to discuss the remainder of appellant's assignments of error.
Appellant's motion for rehearing is granted, the judgment of affirmance is set aside, the judgment of the trial court is now reversed, and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.