Gill v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Lucas v. State

    791 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)   Cited 124 times
    Holding that admission of a defendant in shackles was not unconstitutional where the focus of the video was something other than the defendant's custody status and the jury was instructed on the presumption of innocence

    Regardless of the time element, the facts and circumstances of each case must be looked to and considered in determining the question of remoteness. Davis, supra; Dillard v. State, 153 Tex.Crim. R., 218 S.W.2d 476 (Tex.Cr.App. 1949). Evidence of the lack of reformation or subsequent felony and certain misdemeanor convictions may then cause the prior conviction to fall outside the general rule and not be subject to the objection of remoteness. Crisp v. State, 470 S.W.2d 58 (Tex.Cr.App. 1971); Gill v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 392, 181 S.W.2d 276 (Tex.Cr.App. 1944). See also Davis, supra, at 150.

  2. Crisp v. State

    470 S.W.2d 58 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971)   Cited 18 times
    In Crisp v. State, 470 S.W.2d 58, 59–60 (Tex.Crim.App.1971), we indicated that whether a prior conviction was too remote to impair the defendant's credibility was not to be arbitrarily determined by the lapse of time alone, but rather that the intervening conduct of the accused was pertinent and could be used in determining whether proof of the prior conviction was admissible or too remote.

    The appellant contends that the prior federal conviction of 1956 was too remote to be admissible for impeachment purposes. In Gill v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. R., 181 S.W.2d 276, this Court stated the rule as follows: "The question of remoteness is usually to be determined in the light of the particular facts of each case, especially regarding subsequent conduct of the convict. If there be evidence showing a lack of reformation, or the subsequent conviction of another felony, then the prior conviction is not deemed subject to the objection of remoteness."

  3. Roberts v. State

    634 S.W.2d 767 (Tex. App. 1982)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Lack of reformation is shown by evidence of an intervening conviction for a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. Crisp v. State, 470 S.W.2d 58 (Tex.Cr.App. 1971); King v. State, 425 S.W.2d 356 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978); Courtney v. State, 424 S.W.2d 440 (Tex.Cr.App. 1968); Gill v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. R., 181 S.W.2d 276 (1944). In each of these cases the prior convictions were held not to be remote, although they exceeded ten years, because of the occurrence of the intervening offenses.