Emerson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Emerson v. State

271 S.W. 609, 99 Tex. Crim. 655, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 298

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 15, 1925

DocketNo. 8748.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 271 S.W. 609 (Emerson 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

Emerson v. State, 271 S.W. 609, 99 Tex. Crim. 655, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 298 (Tex. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

BERRY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of Nacogdoches county for the offense of misdemeanor theft and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25.00 and six months in the county jail.

*688 A statement of facts is unnecessary, further than to say that the State’s testimony was sufficient to support the conviction, and the appellant testified in his own behalf and gave evidence which, if believed by the jury, would have exonerated him of any connection with the offense.

The only question we deem it necessary to discuss in the ease is that raised by bill of exceptions No. 5. This bill is sufficient to show that before the defendant took the stand as a witness in his own behalf his counsel presented to the court a motion in which he stated that more than fifteen years before that time defendant was convicted of a felony and requested the court, in view of the remoteness of such conviction, to instruct the county attorney that the same was too remote to be inquired into by the State. On hearing said motion, the same was overruled by the court, and on the defendant’s testifying to exculpatory facts in his own behalf the State on cross-examination was permitted to prove by the defendant that he was convicted in the district court in 1903 and sent to the penitentiary for two years and that he served his term out, for the offense of theft.

This is not a new question in this state. It has been definitely decided that this ruling of the trial court is reversible error. We can see no good purpose that would be served by again writing at length on the question, and content ourselves with saying that the appellant’s contention is sustained by many authorities in Texas. Bullington v. State, 180 S. W. 679; Couch v. State, 245 S. W. 692; Bowen v. State, 71 S. W. 284; Dyer v. State, 77 S. W. 456. For other cases collated, see paragraph 5 under Sec. 170, Branch’s Penal Code.

Because of the error of the court in the matter above discussed, it is our conclusion that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

‘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

BERRY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of Nacogdoches county for the offense of misdemeanor theft and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25.00 and six months in the county jail.

*688 A statement of facts is unnecessary, further than to say that the State’s testimony was sufficient to support the conviction, and the appellant testified in his own behalf and gave evidence which, if believed by the jury, would have exonerated him of any connection with the offense.

The only question we deem it necessary to discuss in the ease is that raised by bill of exceptions No. 5. This bill is sufficient to show that before the defendant took the stand as a witness in his own behalf his counsel presented to the court a motion in which he stated that more than fifteen years before that time defendant was convicted of a felony and requested the court, in view of the remoteness of such conviction, to instruct the county attorney that the same was too remote to be inquired into by the State. On hearing said motion, the same was overruled by the court, and on the defendant’s testifying to exculpatory facts in his own behalf the State on cross-examination was permitted to prove by the defendant that he was convicted in the district court in 1903 and sent to the penitentiary for two years and that he served his term out, for the offense of theft.

This is not a new question in this state. It has been definitely decided that this ruling of the trial court is reversible error. We can see no good purpose that would be served by again writing at length on the question, and content ourselves with saying that the appellant’s contention is sustained by many authorities in Texas. Bullington v. State, 180 S. W. 679; Couch v. State, 245 S. W. 692; Bowen v. State, 71 S. W. 284; Dyer v. State, 77 S. W. 456. For other cases collated, see paragraph 5 under Sec. 170, Branch’s Penal Code.

Because of the error of the court in the matter above discussed, it is our conclusion that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

‘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)

271 S.W. 609, 99 Tex. Crim. 655, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emerson-v-state-texcrimapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack