Court Opinion

ID: 3960675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 10:21:03.607548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:45.448692
License: Public Domain

The judgment in this case was affirmed at a former day of this term, and now comes before us on motion for a rehearing. We have carefully examined the opinion heretofore rendered in said cause, and adhere to all the views therein expressed, except as to the admission of the evidence of Mrs. Hoover, the wife of appellant. She was introduced by appellant in his behalf, and testified as to his mental condition, and that he was in a state of apprehension or alarm for some time prior to the homicide. On cross-examination, over the objection of appellant, the State was permitted to prove that, some years before this, appellant, her husband, had shot one of the Sparks boys, and that just previous thereto, he was in a similar condition of mind. We heretofore held that this evidence was germane to her testimony in chief, but on a more careful and thorough examination of the question, in the light of the authorities, we are of the opinion that we were in error. The rule is well established that the wife can be introduced on behalf of her husband, and that on cross-examination she can be interrogated only as to such matters as naturally spring out of and appertain to her examination in chief. This testimony did not spring out of, and was not germane to, the examination in chief. It was original evidence, and of a most damaging and material character. In fact it was producing in evidence before the jury, against appellant, testimony of another and distinct crime than that for which he was then on trial. It was calculated to inflame the mind of the jury against appellant, and to prejudice his rights as to the case then on trial. We adhere to the rule heretofore laid down by this court in the case of Bluman v. State, 33 Tex.Crim. Rep.. The motion for a rehearing is granted, and the judgment is reversed and the case remanded.
Reversed and Remanded.