Claxton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Claxton v. State

250 S.W. 1023, 94 Tex. Crim. 299, 1923 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 130

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 2, 1923

DocketNo. 7663.

StatusPublished

This text of 250 S.W. 1023 (Claxton 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

Claxton v. State, 250 S.W. 1023, 94 Tex. Crim. 299, 1923 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 130 (Tex. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

*300 LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Ellis County of the sale of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

For some reason which does not appear, testimony was admitted in the trial court the substance and effect of which was that appellant had been running around after negro prostitutes, and the State witnesses were permitted to testify that they had heard such was the fact. Defense witnesses who testified to appellant’s good reputation, for being a peaceable, law-abiding citizen were required, over objection, to answer upon cross-examination as to how a man could have a good reputation who ran around after negro whores. A State witness who testified that the reputation of appellant for being a peaceable, law-abiding citizen was bad, while being cross-examined as to whether he had ever heard,of appellant violating any law, stated that he had heard of appellant being in a car with a negro woman and kissing her, and being on the street with his arms around a negro woman. This answer does not seem to have been responsive to the question asked, and appellant requested that the answer be withdrawn and the jury instructed not to consider it, which request was refused by the trial court.

The Assistant Attorney General concedes that this procedure was in violation of the rights of the appellant and injected before the jury highly prejudicial matters without authority of law.

Believing the admission of State’s counsel to be correct, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

*300 LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Ellis County of the sale of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

For some reason which does not appear, testimony was admitted in the trial court the substance and effect of which was that appellant had been running around after negro prostitutes, and the State witnesses were permitted to testify that they had heard such was the fact. Defense witnesses who testified to appellant’s good reputation, for being a peaceable, law-abiding citizen were required, over objection, to answer upon cross-examination as to how a man could have a good reputation who ran around after negro whores. A State witness who testified that the reputation of appellant for being a peaceable, law-abiding citizen was bad, while being cross-examined as to whether he had ever heard,of appellant violating any law, stated that he had heard of appellant being in a car with a negro woman and kissing her, and being on the street with his arms around a negro woman. This answer does not seem to have been responsive to the question asked, and appellant requested that the answer be withdrawn and the jury instructed not to consider it, which request was refused by the trial court.

The Assistant Attorney General concedes that this procedure was in violation of the rights of the appellant and injected before the jury highly prejudicial matters without authority of law.

Believing the admission of State’s counsel to be correct, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 S.W. 1023, 94 Tex. Crim. 299, 1923 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claxton-v-state-texcrimapp-1923.