West v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Beecham v. State

    580 S.W.2d 588 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)   Cited 43 times

    In order to show that a person's general reputation for peaceableness in the community is bad, it is necessary to qualify the witness by showing that he is acquainted with the person's reputation in the community. See Weatherall v. State, 159 Tex.Crim. R., 264 S.W.2d 429 (1954); West v. State, 137 Tex.Crim. R., 132 S.W.2d 872 (1939). The reputation testimony cannot be based on the witness' personal knowledge or opinion of the person or the violent acts which the person has committed; it must be based on what the witness has heard from others.

  2. City of Topeka v. Harvey

    365 P.2d 1109 (Kan. 1961)   Cited 7 times

    The city made no attempt in its case in chief to introduce evidence in accordance with the foregoing exception, but, instead, sought to elicit that testimony upon cross-examination. The defendant had not placed his character in issue, and the city may not put it in issue upon the cross-examination of his witness by requiring her to testify concerning his prior arrests for the same or similar offenses ( King v. State, 166 Ga. 10, 142 S.E. 160; State v. Gilstrap et al., 149 So. C. 445, 147 S.E. 600; Alfredo Johnson v. The State, 149 Tex. Cr. 245, 193 S.W.2d 528; R.D. West v. The State, 137 Tex. Cr. 554, 132 S.W.2d 872; Adams v. District of Columbia, D.C. Mun. App., 134 A.2d 645). As Mr. Justice Brewer stated many years ago in State v. Adams, 20 Kan. 311, 319, "You cannot prejudice a defendant before a jury by proof of general bad character, or particular acts of crime other than the one for which he is being tried." We cannot, and do not in this case, lay down a rule that cases should be reversed because improper questions were asked, but we feel warranted to say that the error reflected in the record prejudicially affected the rights of the defendant, hence, the judgment of the district court is reversed with directions to sustain the defendant's motion for a new trial. It is so ordered.

  3. Priest v. State

    282 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955)   Cited 9 times

    In the light of the entire record, we do not feel warranted in saying that the above matters complained of did not prejudicially affect the rights of the appellant. Salinas v. State, 146 Tex.Crim. 358, 175 S.W.2d 253; West v. State, 137 Tex.Crim. 554, 132 S.W.2d 872; 18 Tex.Jur. 53, sec. 31. From what has been said, it follows that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded, and it is so ordered.

  4. Weatherall v. State

    264 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. Crim. App. 1954)   Cited 12 times

    A witness must be shown to be qualified to express an opinion that a person's general reputation for being peaceable and law abiding is bad, before expressing such opinion. West v. State, 137 Tex.Crim. R., 132 S.W.2d 872; Broussard v. State, 134 Tex.Crim. R., 114 S.W.2d 248; Ewing v. State, 120 Tex.Crim. 137, 49 S.W.2d 450; Tyler v. State, 46 Tex.Crim. R., 79 S.W. 558; and Branch's Ann.P.C., 117, Sec. 184. We are of the opinion that the witness Henderson did not show himself sufficiently acquainted with appellant's general reputation in the respect mentioned, and that appellant's motion to exclude said testimony from the jury should have been granted.

  5. Vallone v. State

    141 Tex. Crim. 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 1941)   Cited 11 times
    In Vallone, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the State should not seek to admit testimony in a criminal proceeding of facts that are damaging to a criminal defendant by asking the defendant irrelevant questions or by asking questions that are not expected to elicit proof or lay a predicate for legitimate evidence.

    See also Booth v. State, 90 Tex.Crim. R., 234 S.W. 888; McCoy v. State, 129 Tex.Crim. R., 86 S.W.2d 748. The holding in Ard's case (supra) was followed in Graham v. State, 122 Tex.Crim. R., 55 S.W.2d 826; McCoy v. State, 129 Tex. Crim. 259, 86 S.W.2d 748. In his motion for rehearing and written argument in support thereof appellant mentions Alexander v. State, 8 S.W.2d 176; Peysen v. State, 136 Tex.Crim. R., 124 S.W.2d 137; McClure v. State, 136 Tex.Crim. R., 124 S.W.2d 1007; Waters v. State, 91 Tex.Crim. R.; 241 S.W. 496; Sumrow v. State, 116 Tex.Crim. R.; 31 S.W.2d 823; McNaulty v. State, 138 Tex.Crim. R.; 135 S.W.2d 987; Lamm v. State, 94 Tex.Crim. R., 252 S.W. 535; West v. State, 137 Tex. Crim. 554, 132 S.W.2d 872; Bowers v. State, 138 Tex. Crim. 98, 134 S.W.2d 675. It is not believed that such cases furnish much aid in considering the question before us in the present instance. Said cases furnish illustrations where questions to witnesses were put in such form as to inform the jury of specific crimes or misconduct of accused which were collateral to and not connected with the offense upon trial, which facts were not properly provable.