Harvey v. State

37 Tex. 365
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1873·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Walker, J.

The appellant was entitled to a special venire; he was also entitled to a copy of the indictment, and a copy of the names of the jurors summoned, and it was error in the court to rule him to trial, without a strict compliance with the law in this behalf.

It was further error in the court to refuse the appellant the right to cross-examine a witness for the State, who had left the stand, but whom it was proposed to recall for the purpose of laying the foundation for evidence proving that she had made contradictory statements out of court.

[366] A party does'not make a witness Ms own, if he merely recalls the witness for the purpose of cross-examination; bnt if he propounds questions touching new matter not called out on the examination in chief, he makes the witness his own; but a party is not precluded under our law, Article 3133, Paschal’s Digest, from attacking the testimony of his own witness, if the witness makes statements injurious to his cause, in any manner except by proving the bad character of the witness.

The judgment of the District 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

Harvey v. State, 37 Tex. 365 (Tex. 1873).

37 Tex. 365 (Harvey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Casey v. State
90 S.W. 1018 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1905)
State v. Brown
35 So. 818 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1904)
Fuller v. State
17 S.W. 1108 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1891)
Garner v. State
28 Fla. 113 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1891)
State v. Vansant
80 Mo. 67 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Treadway v. State
1 Tex. Ct. App. 668 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1877)