Court Opinion

ID: 9643682
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:37:27.019015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:02.245065
License: Public Domain

GRAVES, Presiding Judge
(Dissenting).
My brethren have rendered an opinion reversing this case on account-of the asking of three questions by the state’s attorney, none of which was answered by the witness. The first question is:
*47“Q. During that time (the time she had known and was living with appellant) have you ever engaged in the profession of prostitution?”
The majority of the court hold that this is an inadmissible question. There was no answer made thereto. It was claimed by the appellant that this woman, who was the daughter of the injured party, had been living with him and had engaged in illicit relations for two years. Appellant’s own counsel asked her if she had not given birth to a child by the appellant while thus living with him. On cross-examination by appellant’s attorney she was asked: ’
“Q. Have you ever lived with Tommy Bush as his wife, Miss Kirkpatrick, as his common law wife? A. Yes.
“Q. Did you carry his name as Mrs. Bush in certain places around town? A. Yes.
“Q. Did you have a child by him?” (No answer).
Now, as to the second question, “During the time you knew Tommy Bush did you ever give him any money?” The record shows that the basis of this trouble supposedly was that this girl witness had given a watch to the appellant and he had traded same in on a ring which he gave to the girl; that he demanded the return of his ring and she required that he first return the watch which she had given him and she would then return the ring; that he and his companion, Ray, came to the house for the purpose of obtaining this ring and possibly for the purpose of obtaining the girl, Betty Joe Kirkpatrick; that they did pick up this girl and tore the clothing off of her with the exception of a blouse and put her in their automobile from which she was rescued by her mother. If she had given him the watch, as is here shown, I see no error that would come from the asking of the question as to whether she had ever given him any money.
The third question, “Now, prior to the time you left Tommy Bush, when was the last time you gave him any money?” was never answered. I fail to see any difference between giving appellant a watch and giving him money, both of them having a commercial value.
This case is being reversed because of the asking of these questions. It seems to me that they were pertinent to the facts finally confronting the attorney trying the case for the state, *48and some of the questions could certainly have been pertinent to the one asked by the appellant’s attorney.
On the facts I see no serious injury that could occur to the appellant from the asking of these three questions to none of which was any answer made.
Therefore, I think this cause should be affirmed instead of reversed and remanded and respectfully enter my dissent thereto.