Court Opinion

ID: 9673162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:07:28.921807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:20.462853
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DALLY, Judge.
Since we have recently overruled Childs v. State, 491 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), the authority relied on in our opinion on the State’s Motion for Rehearing, we must reconsider the appellant’s ground of error in which he complains that the State has improperly allowed over timely objection to *322ask “have you heard” questions of the appellant’s mother during her cross-examination.
After he pled guilty before the jury the appellant attempted to gain the jury’s recommendation for probation. His mother was called as a witness. She testified that since the commission of the offenses the appellant had lived with her in her home, his attitude had changed, he realized what he had done was wrong, and whether he went to the penitentiary or was granted probation would make a big difference in his life. She also testified that since the commission of these offenses he had been working, and that he was not using or involved with drugs.
The State during cross-examination of Mrs. Jewell was allowed to ask her:
“Have you heard that he was arrested on August 15,1972, in Dallas for violation of the State Narcotics Law?”
******
“Now I ask you if you had heard that he was arrested in Dallas on August 15, 1976? Have you heard that?”
* * * * * *
“Have you heard that he was arrested in Fort Worth in 1974 for possession of marihuana over four ounces?”
******
“Have you heard that he had been indicted in Denton County for delivery of cocaine and for delivery of hash?”
The State during the trial and in its brief on appeal in support of its position that the questions were proper relied on Childs v. State, 491 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) and other cases which followed Childs v. State, supra. Childs v. State, supra, has been overruled since the opinion handed down on the State’s Motion for Rehearing by Ward v. State, 591 S.W.2d 810, 816 (Tex. Cr.App.1979). Since the mother’s testimony was not concerned with the appellant’s general reputation for being a law abiding citizen in the community, the questions asked which are only appropriate to test a witness’ knowledge of an appellant’s reputation were improper, Ward v. State, supra. This ease cannot be distinguished from Ward v. State, supra, and from Livingston v. State, 589 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); they are controlling in our disposition of this appeal. We need not reiterate fully what was so recently said in Ward v. State, supra, and Livingston v. State, supra. For the same reasons stated in those opinions the judgments must here be reversed. See also Washington v. State, 590 S.W.2d 493 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).
The appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted and the judgments are reversed and the causes' are remanded to the trial court.