Court Opinion

ID: 9653525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:48:18.755638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:59.849677
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
MORRISON, Judge.
In a lengthy but able brief, appellant has taken us to task for our disposition of his Bill of Exception No. 5, relating to the cross-examination of the reputation witness Hammond. We are asked to differentiate our holding herein from the relatively recent case of Wharton v. State, 157 Tex. Cr. R. 326, 248 S. W. 2d 739.
The distinction to us is clear. We shall here attempt to explain the same. The rule, which seems to be uniform in State and Federal courts, is expressed in 71 A. L. R., page 1530, as follows:
“It is proper to ask the defendant’s character witness on cross-examination, whether or not he had heard that the defendant has been previously convicted of a certain crime, for the purpose of testing the credibility of the witness.”
See also Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd Ed., Sec. 988, p. 618.
We reversed the conviction in McNaulty v. State, 138 Tex. Cr. Rep. 317, 135 S. W. 2d 987, because the prosecutor asked *311the reputation witness if he knew that the appellant had been charged with a certain offense. There, we said:
“While the witness might have been questioned concerning rumors he had heard as to specific acts of misconduct on the part of appellant, contrary to the reputation assigned by the witness, he could not be questioned concerning his knowledge of such matters.”
In the Wharton case, the prosecutor phrased his question properly in accordance with the rule, but incorporated in his question additional matter, which we construed to be an injection of a fact that deprived the accused of a fair trial. We held the question in that case to be nothing else than a direct charge that such a thing had been done.
This is not so in the case at bar. The witness Hammond had testified that he had known the accused for twenty-five years and that his reputation for being a peaceable, law-abiding citizen was good. On cross-examination, the witness stated that he had heard that the accused had had some trouble in Hardin County and was then asked, “You heard he was charged with drunk driving and paid a fine?” The witness’s answer implied that he had so heard.
To us, the case at bar presents a question well within the rule hereinbefore quoted from the McNaulty case.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.