Court Opinion

ID: 9681553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:52:33.139264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:34.422521
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Judge.
Appellant, in his motion for rehearing, insists that reversible error is shown by Bill of Exception No. 3, which bill we did not discuss in our original opinion. The bill certifies that appellant called his wife as a witness and complains of her cross-examination by the state on matters which were not pertinent or germane to the testimony given by her on direct examination. The trial court, in approving the bill, certifies that no objection was made to this cross-examination.
It is the appellant’s contention that such cross-examination constituted fundamental error in that it was in violation of Article 714, V.A.C.C.P., which provides that a husband and wife shall in no case testify against each other except in a criminal prosecution for an offense committed by one against the other. Appellant contends that he could not waive his wife’s disqualification as a witness against him and was not required to object to the improper cross-examination. This contention is overruled.
An accused will not be permitted to introduce his wife as a witness in his behalf, remain silent during her cross-examination, and secure a reversal in the event any part of her cross-examination impinges upon the rule forbidding the use of the wife as a witness against her husband. Ward v. State, 70 Texas Cr. R. 393, 159 S.W. 272; Willingham v. State, 94 Texas Cr. R. 596, 252 S.W. 530; Johnson v. State, 95 Texas Cr. R. 483, 255 S.W. 416; Givens v. State, 98 Texas Cr. R. 651, 267 S.W. 725; Cole v. State, 119 Texas Cr. R. 1, 44 S.W. 2d 722; Glover v. State, 142 Texas Cr. R. 592, 152 S.W. 2d 747.
We have again considered the matters complained of in Bills of Exception Nos. 4, 9 and 10 and remain convinced that these bills do not reflect reversible error.
*505The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.