Pruitt v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Pruitt v. State

355 S.W.2d 528, 172 Tex. Crim. 187, 1962 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 924

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 31, 1962

Docket34207

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 355 S.W.2d 528 (Pruitt 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

Pruitt v. State, 355 S.W.2d 528, 172 Tex. Crim. 187, 1962 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 924 (Tex. 1962).

Pincite

Opinions

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, life.

In view of our disposition of this appeal, a statement of facts will not be deemed necessary.

The indictment alleged that the offense occurred in September, 1951, but this trial (so far as this record reveals, the first trial of this case) did not take place until June of 1961.

During the cross-examination of the first witness for the State, appellant developed that the witness had made a written statement concerning the offense to the police immediately after the incident, had read the same in the office of the district attorney the day before the trial, and that such statement was in the possession of the prosecutor. Demand was then made for production of the statement for the purpose of cross-examination of its maker. This was denied, and counsel then requested that the statement be made a part of his bill of exception. This request was also denied.

The same procedure was followed as to the other two eye witnesses for the State except that they were recalled at the conclusion of the State’s case and demand was made for the incorporation of their statements into the record as a part of his bill of exception “in order that the higher court, on appeal * * * might be able to determine whether or not * * * it was necessary and relevant on cross-examination of the witness.”

This presents almost the identical question as is raised in Gaskin v. State, (p. 7, this volume). There, we quoted from Moreno v. State, 170 Texas Cr. Rep. 410, 341 S.W. 2d 455, and said that such statement should have been made available for the record for the purpose of showing injury, if there was injury, [189]*189and that the refusal of counsel for the State to make available the statements or reports which appellant’s counsel was not permitted to inspect, deprived appellant of the opportunity to show, if he could, that he was prejudiced by the court’s refusal to require the statements to be produced.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, life.

In view of our disposition of this appeal, a statement of facts will not be deemed necessary.

The indictment alleged that the offense occurred in September, 1951, but this trial (so far as this record reveals, the first trial of this case) did not take place until June of 1961.

During the cross-examination of the first witness for the State, appellant developed that the witness had made a written statement concerning the offense to the police immediately after the incident, had read the same in the office of the district attorney the day before the trial, and that such statement was in the possession of the prosecutor. Demand was then made for production of the statement for the purpose of cross-examination of its maker. This was denied, and counsel then requested that the statement be made a part of his bill of exception. This request was also denied.

The same procedure was followed as to the other two eye witnesses for the State except that they were recalled at the conclusion of the State’s case and demand was made for the incorporation of their statements into the record as a part of his bill of exception “in order that the higher court, on appeal * * * might be able to determine whether or not * * * it was necessary and relevant on cross-examination of the witness.”

This presents almost the identical question as is raised in Gaskin v. State, (p. 7, this volume). There, we quoted from Moreno v. State, 170 Texas Cr. Rep. 410, 341 S.W. 2d 455, and said that such statement should have been made available for the record for the purpose of showing injury, if there was injury, [189]*189and that the refusal of counsel for the State to make available the statements or reports which appellant’s counsel was not permitted to inspect, deprived appellant of the opportunity to show, if he could, that he was prejudiced by the court’s refusal to require the statements to be produced.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 S.W.2d 528, 172 Tex. Crim. 187, 1962 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pruitt-v-state-texcrimapp-1962.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack