Hilson v. State

258 S.W. 826, 96 Tex. Crim. 550, 1924 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 125
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 20, 1924
DocketNo. 8079.
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 258 S.W. 826 (Hilson 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
Hilson v. State, 258 S.W. 826, 96 Tex. Crim. 550, 1924 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 125 (Tex. 1924).

Opinion

HAWKINS, Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction for misdemeanor theft carrying a punishment of confinement in the county jail for one year.

We do not think, it necessary to set out the facts because the State has properly confessed error relative to the matters complained of in bills of exception three and four. The record discloses that appellant is a negro. He had pawned the property which he was charged with having stolen to one Harley.

While Harley was testifying he was permitted over objection to state that when appellant came in to pawn the watch witness surmised something; that they had to be very careful about advancing money on jewelry, especially among negroes because most of them were thieves. It is not necessary to argue how such a statement could have been harmful to appellant. The mere statement of what occurred discloses the injury.

While the attorney representing the prosecution was making his argument he denounced appellant and his witnesses as liars, said he knew they were liars and had concocted all their testimony, and stated further with reference to Betty Washington, a negro woman who had given favorable testimony for appellant, that- she was “nothing but just a common negro, black whore.” We have been able to discover in the evidence nothing which would justify the language used. If convictions can not be secured without resorting to such methods it is a fair conclusion that the State is not entitled to them.

For the errors pointed out the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Johnson v. State
604 S.W.2d 128 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Martinez v. State
332 S.W.2d 718 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Miller v. State
36 S.W.2d 158 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Sanderson, Jr. v. State
3 S.W.2d 453 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Sanderson v. State
3 S.W.2d 453 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
258 S.W. 826, 96 Tex. Crim. 550, 1924 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilson-v-state-texcrimapp-1924.