Bailey v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Bailey v. State

28 S.W.2d 547, 116 Tex. Crim. 522, 1930 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 805

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 21, 1930

DocketNo. 13518.

StatusPublished

This text of 28 S.W.2d 547 (Bailey v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. State, 28 S.W.2d 547, 116 Tex. Crim. 522, 1930 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 805 (Tex. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for life.

Appellant shot and killed his wife. It was undisputed that deceased was in bed at the time she was killed, and that appellant fired the shot from outside the house. The parties had had previous difficulties. Insanity was the sole defense.

Appellant’s witness, Monroe Edwards, had been convicted of a felony in the district court of Milam County on the 4th of October, 1924. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by this court on the 10th day of June, 1925, which was prior to the taking effect of Chapter 27 of the Acts of the Thirty-ninth Legislature, 1925. Upon objection by the state, the witness was not permitted to testify. A conditional pardon by Governor Miriam A. Ferguson granted on the 20th day of January, 1926, was produced. We held in Alexander v. State, 281 S. W. 852, that the provisions of Chapter 27 of the Acts of the Thirty-ninth Legislature had the effect of rendering an unpardoned convict competent to testify, provided he was not incarcerated in the penitentiary at the time of the trial. In Underwood v. State, 12 S. W. (2d) 2Ó6, we held that-said act did not have the effect of rendering a convict competent to testify-in case the disability had attached prior to the taking effect of said act. The conditional pardon did not have the effect of rendering *523 the witness competent to testify. McGee v. State, 16 S. W. 422; Dudley v. State, 24 Tex. Apps. 163, 5 S. W. 649; Carr v. State, 19 Tex. Crim. Rep. 635. Inasmuch as the witness had been finally convicted of a felony prior to the taking effect of the act in question, he was not competent to testify.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for life.

Appellant shot and killed his wife. It was undisputed that deceased was in bed at the time she was killed, and that appellant fired the shot from outside the house. The parties had had previous difficulties. Insanity was the sole defense.

Appellant’s witness, Monroe Edwards, had been convicted of a felony in the district court of Milam County on the 4th of October, 1924. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by this court on the 10th day of June, 1925, which was prior to the taking effect of Chapter 27 of the Acts of the Thirty-ninth Legislature, 1925. Upon objection by the state, the witness was not permitted to testify. A conditional pardon by Governor Miriam A. Ferguson granted on the 20th day of January, 1926, was produced. We held in Alexander v. State, 281 S. W. 852, that the provisions of Chapter 27 of the Acts of the Thirty-ninth Legislature had the effect of rendering an unpardoned convict competent to testify, provided he was not incarcerated in the penitentiary at the time of the trial. In Underwood v. State, 12 S. W. (2d) 2Ó6, we held that-said act did not have the effect of rendering a convict competent to testify-in case the disability had attached prior to the taking effect of said act. The conditional pardon did not have the effect of rendering *523 the witness competent to testify. McGee v. State, 16 S. W. 422; Dudley v. State, 24 Tex. Apps. 163, 5 S. W. 649; Carr v. State, 19 Tex. Crim. Rep. 635. Inasmuch as the witness had been finally convicted of a felony prior to the taking effect of the act in question, he was not competent to testify.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 S.W.2d 547, 116 Tex. Crim. 522, 1930 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-state-texcrimapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack