Court Opinion

ID: 9665738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:55:39.942876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:18.251923
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge
(dissenting on State’s motion for rehearing).
The majority overrules the State’s motion for rehearing without written opinion. At the penalty stage of the trial the State proved that appellant had been convicted for the offense of cattle theft in Arnett, Oklahoma and had served his sentence.
The reversal was because of alleged error at the penalty stage of the trial because the State did not show that other prior trials resulted in final convictions even though there was no objection on that ground. Even if there had been a proper objection, no reversible error would be shown because the testimony offered was for the purpose of impeaching appellant’s mother or correcting a wrong impression given by her.
The entire testimony of Louella Morgan, appellant’s mother, is as follows:
“Q. (By Mr. Holt, Defense Counsel) Will you state your name, please?
“A. Louella Morgan.
“Q. Where do you live, Mrs. Morgan?
“A. In Alva, Oklahoma.
“Q. Are you the mother of Carl Morgan?
“A. Yes, I am.
“Q. Mrs. Morgan, you have been here all during this trial — or today, haven’t you ?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. What — the reason I have asked you to testify is to furnish the Jury with some additional information concerning the Defendant.
How old is Carl Morgan ?
“A. Thirty-six.
“Q. And he is your natural son, is that correct ?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Did he live and grow up in Alva?
“A. On our ranch, Northwest of Alva.
“Q. Now, what do you mean when you say ‘on your ranch’ ? How much property are you talking about?
“A. We have three Quarters and a Forty, and he was born and raised out there, and attended twelve years of school out there.
“Q. Is Carl’s father living ?
“A. He is living. He is in very bad shape. He was born a cripple. He then had polio. He is seventy-five years of age, and he is in a walker. And his memory is very bad. He has had a number of serious surgeries.
“Q. Is he an invalid?
“A. Yes, he is. Only in a walker can he take a step.
“Q. Now, Carl has been convicted previously, and has served approximately — well, some amount of time, *283approximately fifteen months in the Oklahoma Penitentiary, is that correct ?
“A. That is correct.
“Q. And that was for the offense of cattle theft, is that right ?
“A. As far as I know.
“Q. Has Carl ever been married ?
“A. Yes, he has.
“Q. Does he have a family ?
“A. He had two wonderful little boys, and which one of them was shot and killed the night before Hallow-ee’n last year; two wonderful little boys.
“Q. Is he currently married at this time?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. Was he divorced by his wife?
“A. Yes, sir.
“O. Was this while he was in prison in Oklahoma ?
“A. Just before he left.
“Q. And after this took place, one of his children was killed, is that correct?
“A. Yes, sir. The loaded pistol was laid down by the little children, and the little children turned right to it, and one was killed.
“O. And where was Carl when this happened ?
“A. He was at McAlester.
“Q. Since he was released from prison, Mrs. Morgan, what has Carl been doing ?
“A. He has been working for the. Railroad, and they called me from Amarillo, and said that he was one of the best that they had ever had. He was very dependable. And they didn’t feel like they could get along without him. They called me from Amarillo.
“Q. Has he been, in addition to working for the Santa Fe Railroad, has he been helping with the farm ?
“A. With his daddy, and on the farm.
“Q. Did he serve in the Service after he got out of school ?
“A. He served nearly two years in Germany after he got out of school. He served almost two years overseas.
“Q. Did he receive an Honorable Discharge ?
“A. Yes, he did.
“MR. HOLT: Pass the witness.
“CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. SHEARER (Prosecutor) :
“Q. Has Carl been convicted of cattle theft in Oklahoma more than one time?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. Were you here when the evidence as to an Arnett conviction came in ?
“A. No, sir. This is the only time I have been here.
“Q. I see. Do you know anything about a trial that took place in Buffalo ?
“A. I knew when it took place. I wasn’t there. My daughter, I believe that was the place that my fine daughter was there with him at that time. I wasn’t able to go.
“Q. Do you know the results of that trial?
“A. Well, I really don’t know just — I know they brought up three different things on one group of cattle, and had him staying in three different places, which looked like it was very unfair.”
*284It is noted that she testified that appellant had an honorable discharge from the service, and that he was a dependable person. She testified on direct examination that he had been to the penitentiary for cattle theft. She did not testify when or where such conviction was had.
She was asked on cross-examination without objection if appellant had been convicted more than one time. She answered, “No.” When she was asked if she knew about the trial that took place in Buffalo, she testified that she knew it took place, but she was not there. When asked about the results of that trial, she gave an unresponsive answer, “Well, I really don’t know just — I know they brought up three different things on one group of cattle and had him staying in three different places, which looked like it was very unfair.”
After this, DeWayne Cates was recalled by the State and the following occurred:
“Q. (By Mr. Shearer): DeWayne, do you have any knowledge concerning whether or not a trial ever took place in Buffalo, concerning Carl Morgan ?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. What was the charge, if any, in that trial?
“A. Cattle theft.
“Q. What was the — who was the named Defendant ?
“A. Carl Morgan.
“MR. HOLT: Your Honor, we are going to object to this line of questioning, unless Counsel has any authenticated copies of Judgments of convictions, or anything in that regard.
“MR. SHEARER: I would represent to the Court I do not have any such authenticated Judgment, and it occurred to me maybe this is the type of question that is proper, in view of the answer given by Mrs. Morgan.
“THE COURT: The Court would allow the question.
“Q. (By Mr. Shearer) : Was Carl the named Defendant there ?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Were you present when the Jury brought in a verdict ?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. And what was that verdict ?
“A. Guilty.
“Q. Now, were you witness in both those two trials, Arnett and Buffalo?
“A. Yes, sir.”
It can be seen there was no objection that the trials did not result in final convictions.
Mrs. Morgan was called for the express purpose of giving additional information concerning appellant. She told of a conviction for cattle theft, leaving the impression that there was only one. She did not relate which conviction. She, as most mothers would, wanted to show the appellant in the best light that she could before the jury.
The State under previous decisions of this Court was permitted to show that appellant was not as good a citizen as she had represented him to be.
The testimony of Cates refutes the testi-held on three charges involving one group mony of Mrs. Morgan that appellant was of cattle.
The majority should follow the reasoning in Childs v. State, 491 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.Cr.App.) In that case the defendant sought probation. His father testified that if his son were granted probation he would keep him at home, employ him and supervise his conduct and assist him in exemplary conduct. The father also testified that the conduct had been good while he had been at home. On cross-examination, *285he was asked if “ ‘he had heard’ ” that his son had been indicted for robbery and for possession of marihuana and was living with a prostitute who was also a heroin addict.
Childs contended that the father’s testimony was not that of a reputation or character witness and, therefore, the questions and answers were improper. This Court noted that the testimony of the father of Childs was geared toward persuading the jury to grant him probation by showing them his good character and law abiding habits. This Court held:
“Appellant may not have a witness testify about his good character traits but avoid ‘placing his reputation in evidence’ simply by not specifically asking whether appellant enjoyed a good reputation in the community. . . .”
The testimony of Mrs. Morgan in the present case was to show the good traits of appellant in the best light that she could. The State, as in the Childs and other cases, should have been able to counteract that testimony with proof relevant to disprove the false impression. See Salazar v. State, 494 S.W.2d 548 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Navajar v. State, 496 S.W.2d 61 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), and Aldrighetti v. State, 507 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). See also Thomas v. State, 477 S.W.2d 881 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), and especially the concurring opinion.
The State’s theory at the trial was that the testimony of Cates was admissible in view of the testimony of Mrs. Morgan. Although all of the testimony of Cates is not true impeachment, it was a form of impeachment to contradict or disprove the impression left by the mother.
Where testimony of a prior conviction is for the purpose of impeachment, copies of the proceedings do not have to be admitted into evidence.
In 1 Branch’s Ann.P.C.2d, Section 125, the correct rule is found. It is as follows:
“If the object is only to impeach the witness, record evidence of his conviction is not necessary. Bratton v. State, 34 Crim. [Tex.Cr.R.] 477, 31 S.W. 379; Sipanek v. State, 100 Crim. [Tex.Cr.R.] 489, 272 S.W. 141.”
In the Bratton case, supra, decided in 1895, the conviction was for horse theft. There it is written:
“Appellant testified. Upon cross-examination, over his objections, the state proved he had been convicted and sent to the penitentiary for the theft of a horse; the objection being that the record was the best evidence. For the purpose this evidence was introduced, namely, to impeach the witness, the record was not necessary.”
In the Sipanek case, supra, it is written:
“. . . Oral proof of the conviction of the witness Gale was admissible, however, for the purpose of impeachment. Lights v. State, 21 Tex.App. 308, 313, 17 S.W. 428; Carroll v. State, 32 Tex.Cr.R. 431, 433, 24 S.W. 100, 40 Am.St.Rep. 786; and other cases collated in Branch’s Ann.Tex.P.C., Section 167.
This rule was recognized and applied in Johnson v. State, 453 S.W.2d 828 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), where oral evidence of a conviction was used to impeach a witness. The following is taken from that opinion:
“‘We object to any impeachment along this line, unless we can prove it by a Court record, which would be the best evidence.’
“In 62 Tex.Jur.2d, Sec. 276, p. 256, is found:
“ ‘Although the best evidence rule does not afford ground for objecting to a question designed to procure an admission from the witness as to a conviction against him, since that rule has no application in those circumstances, the rule does not exclude oral proof of a convic*286tion otherwise than by an admission of the witness himself * * *.’ ”
The testimony of Cates in the present case was admissible to counteract that given by appellant’s mother and, as heretofore shown, written proof of the prior convictions was not required.
The State’s motion for rehearing' should be granted and the conviction affirmed.
MORRISON, J., joins in this dissent.