Court Opinion

ID: 9643338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:26:19.6637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:59.583597
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
In our prior opinion we held that the witness Aleñe Joseph had not been impeached and cited as authority Lopez v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 552, 352 S.W.2d 106. Upon further examination of Lopez we find the rule there expressed as follows: “To constitute impeachment of which the appellant complains, it would be necessary for the State to support the predicate laid, either by the introduction of the written statement or by an affirmative showing that the written statement contained such matter.” We now re-examine the record before us in the light of this rule. When the witness Joseph, while being examined by the State, first denied that appellant had brought a package to her house (a fact which was necessary for the State to prove in order to make its case) she was asked if she had given “this statement.” To this she replied, “No sir, I didn’t, but I signed my name.” She then testified that after signing the statement she had refused to talk to the prosecutor. After a hearing in the absence of the jury, the court expressed the opinion that the State had established that they were surprised at her answer in which she denied that appellant had brought a package to her home. The following then transpired in the presence of the jury:
“Q. Do you know Max Phillips or Sergeant Phillips, a police officer for the Port Arthur police ?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. On September 13, 1962 he was questioning you concerning this matter and you gave him certain answers ?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Isn’t it a fact that you told him ‘My name is Aleñe Joseph.’ ?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Isn’t it a fact that you told him, T am thirty-six years old and I live at 6032 Buckner Drive, Port Acres, Texas and I am a housewife.’? Isn’t it a fact that you told him that?
“A. No, I didn’t tell him I was thirty-six ; I am thirty-eight years old.
“Q. This was in September of 1962.
“A. Yes, uh-huh.
“Q. That’s a fact you told him that?
“A. Uh-huh.
“Q. Isn’t it a fact that you said, ‘Yesterday morning, September 12 at about 10:20 Doc Henely came to my house at 6032 Buckner Drive, he brought some clothes in to be *881washed.’ ? isn’t it a fact that you told him that?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Isn’t it a fact that you told him the following: ‘After he brought the clothes he gave me a package and told me if Mary Trahan came by to pick me up to go do some work for her today to give her this package.’?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. That is not a fact. You did not tell him that?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. Isn’t it a fact that you told him this: T was shown a package by Detective Mitchell and Sergeant Phillips, it is the same package that Doc gave me to give to Mrs. Trahan.’ ?
“A. No.
“Q. That is not true ?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. Isn’t it a fact that you told him the following: ‘After Doc Henley gave me the package he told me to go put it up.’ Isn’t that a fact?
“A. No.
“Q. Isn’t it a fact that you told him, T put the package in the back bedroom in a dresser drawer.’?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. Isn’t it a fact that you told him, ‘When Mary Trahan came in the house she asked me was I going to help her today. I told her I would not, the weather was too bad. I told her I had a package that Doc Henley had told me to give her.’ ? Isn’t it a fact you told him that?
“A. No. I told them when they asked me — I told them she had come to get me to go work for her.
“Q. Isn’t it a fact that you told him the following: T had not had time to give Mrs. Trahan the package yet when the police came into my house. The police found the package where I had put it in the dresser drawer.’?
“A. No, sir.”
It is now apparent from' the above that this constituted “an affirmative showing that the written statement contained such matter,” and the witness was actually impeached.
This brings us to the question of the Court’s charge which we have not heretofore discussed. In appellant’s objections to the charge we find the following two paragraphs :
“In addition the defendant objects to said instruction because it is not complete and requests the Court to further instruct the jury that they are not to consider any prior statement made by the witness, Aleñe Joseph, as any proof that said testimony was not true, or a proper instruction embracing this last principle of law.”

“The defendant objects to the court’s charge because same fails to withdraw from the evidence the questions and answers concerning a prior statement made by the State’s witness Aleñe Joseph, and here and now requests the court to give a proper instruction withdrawing from the evidence all attempted impeachment of the said witness by the State.”
The court failed to respond to either objection. In Hall v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 297 S.W.2d 685, we had occasion to discuss fully the law relating to the court’s charge in cases where a State’s witness *882has been impeached. There we quoted with approval a charge which was given in Carroll v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 269, 158 S.W.2d 532, as follows:
“You are further instructed that the testimony of the witness, E. D. Cartwright, regarding the statements of the witnesses Frank Carroll and Mrs. Frank Carroll, was admitted for the purpose of impeaching the said witnesses, Frank Carroll and Mrs. Frank Carroll, if you find that it does impeach them, and you cannot consider said impeachment testimony as any evidence whatever of the guilt of the defendant.”
We have now concluded that appellant’s objections clearly pointed out to the court the defect in his charge and that he fell into error in not responding to such objections.
Having so concluded, appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted, the judgment of affirmance is set aside and the judgment is now reversed and remanded.
It is so ordered.