Dudley v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Dudley v. State

5 S.W. 649, 24 Tex. Ct. App. 163, 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 179

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 2, 1887

DocketNo. 2655

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 S.W. 649 (Dudley 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

Dudley v. State, 5 S.W. 649, 24 Tex. Ct. App. 163, 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 179 (Tex. Ct. App. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Willson, Judge.

With commendable and characteristic candor and fairness, the Assistant Attorney General confesses errors in this conviction, to wit:

1. It was error to permit the witness Shultz to testify as a witness in behalf of the State, over the defendant’s objection, it being shown that said witness had been convicted of felony in this State, which conviction had not been legally set aside, and the said witness not having been legally pardoned for the crime of which he had been convicted—said witness having been conditionally pardoned only. (Carr v. The State, 19 Texas Ct. App., 635.)

[164]*164Opinion delivered November 2, 1887.

2. It was error to reject, when offered as evidence by the defendant, the judgment of conviction showing the conviction of said witness Shultz of a felony. This testimony was offered for the purpose of affecting the credibility of said witness, and for such purpose was admissible. (Bennett v. The State, ante, page 73.)

Because of said errors the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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