The answer was clearly admissible for the purpose of showing the existence or lack of bias, prejudice or motive of the witness. See Hall v. State, Tex.Crim.App. 1966, 402 S.W.2d 752, 755, 756; O'Neal v. State, Tex.Crim.App. 1912, 146 S.W. 938, 940, 941; Eaves v. State, 115 Tex.Crim. 460, 1930, 29 S.W.2d 339, 341; Wigmore on Evidence, § 949, p. 503, §§ 967, 968, pp. 525-527. With deference, I submit that the present majority has based its opinion and decision largely on the technicalities of the state law of evidence, and the strict requirements necessary to convict Gober of perjury.
It is not for the purpose of impeachment proper to make proof that the accused is under indictment for a felony involving the same act as that for which he is on trial. Eaves v. State, 29 S.W.2d 339. However, appellant made no objection to the question, but contented himself with objecting to the testimony after he had already answered the question.