Robbins v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Robbins v. State

265 S.W.2d 108, 159 Tex. Crim. 481, 1954 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2332

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 3, 1954

DocketNo. 26,850

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 S.W.2d 108 (Robbins 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

Robbins v. State, 265 S.W.2d 108, 159 Tex. Crim. 481, 1954 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2332 (Tex. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

BELCHER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit, morphine, and his punishment was assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

In view of the disposition we make of this case it is not necessary to here state the facts.

Appellant entered a plea of not guilty, did not testify, and did not file an application for a suspended sentence.

' The state, in making out its case in chief, introduced the following testimony by the alleged purchaser of narcotics from appellant: The witness testified that appellant told him that he had twenty convictions before he was sixteen years of age; had participated in the robbery of a store; had been to the penitentiary on a kidnapping charge, and “had done time in Huntsville.” Appellant timely objected to this testimony upon the ground that the state was attacking his character and reputation which had not been placed in issue. He requested that the testimony be stricken from the record, and the jury be instructed to disregard same for all purposes, and also moved for a mistrial, which motions were overruled.

[482]*482Another witness, for the state, gave substantially the same testimony over appellant’s objection.

The state cannot attack the accused’s character or reputation until it has been put in issue. Appellant, at no time, having, placed his character or reputation in issue, evidence as to his prior convictions was inadmissible. Fanin v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 41, 100 S.W. 916; Kelley v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. R. 362, 185 S.W. 570; Patrick v. State, 102 Tex. Cr. R. 434, 278 S.W. 432; Johnson v. State, 149 Tex. Cr. R. 245, 193 S.W. 2d 528; Freeze v. State, 133 Tex. Cr. R. 595, 113 S.W. 2d 538; Harris v. State, 149 Tex. Cr. R. 308, 194 S.W. 2d 101.

For the error herein pointed out, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.

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

BELCHER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit, morphine, and his punishment was assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

In view of the disposition we make of this case it is not necessary to here state the facts.

Appellant entered a plea of not guilty, did not testify, and did not file an application for a suspended sentence.

' The state, in making out its case in chief, introduced the following testimony by the alleged purchaser of narcotics from appellant: The witness testified that appellant told him that he had twenty convictions before he was sixteen years of age; had participated in the robbery of a store; had been to the penitentiary on a kidnapping charge, and “had done time in Huntsville.” Appellant timely objected to this testimony upon the ground that the state was attacking his character and reputation which had not been placed in issue. He requested that the testimony be stricken from the record, and the jury be instructed to disregard same for all purposes, and also moved for a mistrial, which motions were overruled.

[482]*482Another witness, for the state, gave substantially the same testimony over appellant’s objection.

The state cannot attack the accused’s character or reputation until it has been put in issue. Appellant, at no time, having, placed his character or reputation in issue, evidence as to his prior convictions was inadmissible. Fanin v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 41, 100 S.W. 916; Kelley v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. R. 362, 185 S.W. 570; Patrick v. State, 102 Tex. Cr. R. 434, 278 S.W. 432; Johnson v. State, 149 Tex. Cr. R. 245, 193 S.W. 2d 528; Freeze v. State, 133 Tex. Cr. R. 595, 113 S.W. 2d 538; Harris v. State, 149 Tex. Cr. R. 308, 194 S.W. 2d 101.

For the error herein pointed out, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 S.W.2d 108, 159 Tex. Crim. 481, 1954 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robbins-v-state-texcrimapp-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack