Blunt v. State

Citations

• 9 Tex. Ct. App. 234

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence—Practice. — To show animosity in the prosecuting witness towards the accused, counsel for the defence asked the witness, “Don’t you love the defendant?” and the court below refused to compelan answer. Held, that, notwithstanding the great latitude allowable in cross-examination, the question was not a proper one, and the action of the court was not erroneous. See the opinion in extenso on the scope of a cross-examination to show bias or animus.</p> <p>2. Charge of the court instructed the jury to acquit unless they.were convinced of the defendant’s guilt “ beyond absolute certainty.” Held, that the instruction, though erroneous, was not to the prejudice of the defendant.</p> <p>3. Hog-Theft — Jurisdiction — Evidence. — Inasmuch as the County Courts have no jurisdiction to try accusations of the theft of hogs worth $20 or more, the question of value is one of jurisdiction in cases of hog-theft pending in those courts. Proof, therefore, that the value was less than $20 is necessary to warrant or sustain their judgments of conviction in such cases.</p>