McGown v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

McGown v. State

176 S.W.2d 317, 146 Tex. Crim. 472, 1943 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 651

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 22, 1943

DocketNo. 22692.

StatusPublished

This text of 176 S.W.2d 317 (McGown 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

McGown v. State, 176 S.W.2d 317, 146 Tex. Crim. 472, 1943 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 651 (Tex. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Robbery is the offense; the punishment, five years in the State penitentiary.

The injured party was positive in his identification of the appellant as the person who robbed him and took from his person a billfold, as alleged in the indictment. This was sufficient to warrant the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

It appears that, while appellant was testifying as a witness in his own behalf, he was, upon cross-examination, asked, by State’s counsel: “Is this the first time you have been in trouble, Albin?” Appellant’s objection to the question was sustained, and the jury was instructed not to consider the same. Appellant insists that the'mere asking of the question prejudiced his rights before the jury and that such injury could not be erased by a withdrawal of the question. While the bill of exception presenting the matter negatives the fact that appellant had not placed his reputation in issue, yet such fact alone would not render the *473 question objectionable; for, if appellant had been charged with or convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, proof of such fact would have been admissible as affecting his credibility as a witness. There is no showing that, in propounding the question, State’s counsel acted other than in good faith.

The jury having assessed the minimum punishment, we are unable to conclude that appellant’s rights were prejudiced by the mere asking of the question.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Robbery is the offense; the punishment, five years in the State penitentiary.

The injured party was positive in his identification of the appellant as the person who robbed him and took from his person a billfold, as alleged in the indictment. This was sufficient to warrant the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

It appears that, while appellant was testifying as a witness in his own behalf, he was, upon cross-examination, asked, by State’s counsel: “Is this the first time you have been in trouble, Albin?” Appellant’s objection to the question was sustained, and the jury was instructed not to consider the same. Appellant insists that the'mere asking of the question prejudiced his rights before the jury and that such injury could not be erased by a withdrawal of the question. While the bill of exception presenting the matter negatives the fact that appellant had not placed his reputation in issue, yet such fact alone would not render the *473 question objectionable; for, if appellant had been charged with or convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, proof of such fact would have been admissible as affecting his credibility as a witness. There is no showing that, in propounding the question, State’s counsel acted other than in good faith.

The jury having assessed the minimum punishment, we are unable to conclude that appellant’s rights were prejudiced by the mere asking of the question.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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)

176 S.W.2d 317, 146 Tex. Crim. 472, 1943 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgown-v-state-texcrimapp-1943.