Reed v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Reed v. State

200 S.W. 843, 82 Tex. Crim. 657, 1918 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 51

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 30, 1918

DocketNo. 4788.

StatusPublished

This text of 200 S.W. 843 (Reed 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

Reed v. State, 200 S.W. 843, 82 Tex. Crim. 657, 1918 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 51 (Tex. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

*658 PRENDERGAST, Judge.

This is an appeal from a misdemeanor conviction for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor in prohibition territory.

The State’s witness swore positively he bought such liquor from appellant as alleged in the information. She swore she did not make the sale. He swore he' bought the liquor about noon, and thereafter, during the evening, drank considerable of it. The officers caught him with some of the whisky about 10 o’clock that night at which time he signed and swore to the complaint herein. As a part of the Stated main case the court permitted him and the county attorney and deputy sheriff, over appellant’s objections, to testify in substance that at the time he swore to said complaint he made substantially to them the same statements of his purchasing the liquor from appellant that he testified to on the stand. This was hearsay, and inadmissible to prove the State’s case, and presents error which results in a reversal of the judgment.

Any witness may be impeached by showing that he was drunk at the time of the events concerning which he testified about. Payton v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 475; Green v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 490; 40 Cyc., 2574; 2 Wharton’s Crim. Ev., 785. If a witness is impeached in this way then he can he supported just as any impeached witness can be. However, there was no testimony in this case that appellant was drunk or drinking when he bought the liquor which he swore he bought from appellant.

As appellant herself swore that she never sold liquor to appellant at any time, the State had the right to have the complaining witness in rebuttal swear that he did buy intoxicating liquor from her at other times. The particulars of these sales, if any, would he inadmissible.

Eor the error above pointed out, the judgment of the lower 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

*658 PRENDERGAST, Judge.

This is an appeal from a misdemeanor conviction for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor in prohibition territory.

The State’s witness swore positively he bought such liquor from appellant as alleged in the information. She swore she did not make the sale. He swore he' bought the liquor about noon, and thereafter, during the evening, drank considerable of it. The officers caught him with some of the whisky about 10 o’clock that night at which time he signed and swore to the complaint herein. As a part of the Stated main case the court permitted him and the county attorney and deputy sheriff, over appellant’s objections, to testify in substance that at the time he swore to said complaint he made substantially to them the same statements of his purchasing the liquor from appellant that he testified to on the stand. This was hearsay, and inadmissible to prove the State’s case, and presents error which results in a reversal of the judgment.

Any witness may be impeached by showing that he was drunk at the time of the events concerning which he testified about. Payton v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 475; Green v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 490; 40 Cyc., 2574; 2 Wharton’s Crim. Ev., 785. If a witness is impeached in this way then he can he supported just as any impeached witness can be. However, there was no testimony in this case that appellant was drunk or drinking when he bought the liquor which he swore he bought from appellant.

As appellant herself swore that she never sold liquor to appellant at any time, the State had the right to have the complaining witness in rebuttal swear that he did buy intoxicating liquor from her at other times. The particulars of these sales, if any, would he inadmissible.

Eor the error above pointed out, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 S.W. 843, 82 Tex. Crim. 657, 1918 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-state-texcrimapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack