Bluitt v. State

Citations

• 12 Tex. Ct. App. 39

Syllabus

<p>1. Burglary — Evidence.—In a trial for burglary the inculpation of the accused depended on circumstantial evidence, and partly upon identifying as his a peculiar track upon the ground. To make this proof the State was allowed, over objection by the defense, to elicit from a witness the statement that certain shoes of the accused would have made such a track as the owner of the premises had described to the witness as the track of the burglar. Held, that this testimony was not only hearsay, but was the mere opinion of the witness. It would have been competent for the witness to describe the shoes, but it was the province of the; jury to determine whether they could have made the track.</p> <p>2. Impeaching Testimony.— After an impeaching witness has stated that he knows the general reputation for truth of the assailed witness, and that it is bad, he may be asked whether from that reputation the assailed witness is worthy of belief. This is not tantamount to the objectionable inquiry whether the impeaching witness would himself believe the assailed witness.</p>