Barnes v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Barnes v. State

11 S.W. 679, 28 Tex. Ct. App. 29, 1889 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 119

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 1, 1889

DocketNo. 6586

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 S.W. 679 (Barnes v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnes v. State, 11 S.W. 679, 28 Tex. Ct. App. 29, 1889 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 119 (Tex. Ct. App. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

White, Presiding Judge.

Boode Brookin, the witness offered by defendant, and whose competency as a witness was raised by objection on the part of the prosecution, was clearly incompetent, he being charged by another indictment with the theft of the same animal for the theft of which appellant was upon trial. The court did not err in rejecting him as a witness. Code Crim. Proc., art. 732; Willson’s Crim. Stats., sec. 2437; Wood v. The State, 26 Texas Ct. App., 490.

Evidence was adduced on the trial of the theft of several other animals at the same time and place as the one for which defendant was being prosecuted. Though this evidence was admissible and legitimate, it was nevertheless the imperative duty of the court in its charge to so limit and restrict such evidence to the purposes for which alone it was admissible, as that the jury might not use it improperly in considering it in connection with the defendant’s guilt of theft of the animal for which he was upon trial. Willson’s Crim. Stats., sec. 2344; Davis v. The State, 23 Texas Ct. App., 210; Wheeler v. The State, Id., 598; Cravey v. The State, Id., 677; Willis v. The State, 24 Texas Ct. App., 584; Reno v. The State, 25 Texas Ct. App., 102; Gentry v. The State, Id., 614.

The omission of the court to so limit and restrict this evidence is confessed as error by the Assistant Attorney-General, and the judgment for this omission is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges all present and concurring.

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

White, Presiding Judge.

Boode Brookin, the witness offered by defendant, and whose competency as a witness was raised by objection on the part of the prosecution, was clearly incompetent, he being charged by another indictment with the theft of the same animal for the theft of which appellant was upon trial. The court did not err in rejecting him as a witness. Code Crim. Proc., art. 732; Willson’s Crim. Stats., sec. 2437; Wood v. The State, 26 Texas Ct. App., 490.

Evidence was adduced on the trial of the theft of several other animals at the same time and place as the one for which defendant was being prosecuted. Though this evidence was admissible and legitimate, it was nevertheless the imperative duty of the court in its charge to so limit and restrict such evidence to the purposes for which alone it was admissible, as that the jury might not use it improperly in considering it in connection with the defendant’s guilt of theft of the animal for which he was upon trial. Willson’s Crim. Stats., sec. 2344; Davis v. The State, 23 Texas Ct. App., 210; Wheeler v. The State, Id., 598; Cravey v. The State, Id., 677; Willis v. The State, 24 Texas Ct. App., 584; Reno v. The State, 25 Texas Ct. App., 102; Gentry v. The State, Id., 614.

The omission of the court to so limit and restrict this evidence is confessed as error by the Assistant Attorney-General, and the judgment for this omission is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges all present and concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 S.W. 679, 28 Tex. Ct. App. 29, 1889 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-state-texapp-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack