Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

RICHARD WATTS v. THE STATE.

Carrying Pistol — Evidence — Convict — Pardon.

Where, upon trial of unlawfully carrying a pistol, material testimony was admitted by a witness who was an unpardoned convict for felony there was reversible error. Article 782, Code Criminal Procedure.

PRENDERGAST, JUDGE.

The appellant was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol.

The State introduced two witnesses, who testified clearly and positively that on the occasion charged in the indictment they saw the appellant have a pistol; that in a row that occurred between him and others he pulled his pistol off of his person, held it in his hand and presented it. In addition to this, the State introduced another witness, and before he testified as to the facts of the case appellant proved by him, without objection by the State, that he had served a full term in the penitentiary for a felony, and had never been pardoned, nor his citizenship restored to him. The appellant then objected to his testifying, because he was an unpardoned convict. The statute expressly disqualifies such a witness from testifying. Code of Criminal Procedure, article 782, subdivision 3. The State, upon proper objection, could have prevented the witness from testifying orally about his conviction, etc., and have required the defendant to produce the proper judgment of conviction, sentence, etc., but not having done this, and the witness being permitted to testify, clearly presents reversible error. White v. State, 33 Tex.Crim. Rep., and Moore v. State, 39 Tex.Crim. Rep..

Whether or not appellant had the pistol on this occasion was expressly denied by him in his testimony, and in addition he had several witnesses who also, in substance, so testified. The question of whether or not he had a pistol was, therefore, the material question in the case. Permitting the disqualified witness to testify is, therefore, reversible error.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WATTS v. THE STATE
(Jun 5, 1912)