Guajardo v. State

Citations

• 24 Tex. Ct. App. 603
• 7 S.W. 331
• 1888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 17

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—Evidence.—On a trial for theft the State, over the objection of the accused, was permitted to prove that, for the four or five years prior to the trial, the accused had been confined in the penitentiary for felony. Held, that the proof was illegal and incompetent. Its admission was error in the first place, and the trial court further erred in overruling the motion of the accused to exclude it from the consideration of the jury.</p> <p>2. Same.—District Court Rule No. 57 provides, with regard to exceptions to evidence, that, if the evidence is obviously competent and admissible as tending to prove any fact put in issue by the pleadings, then the objection must assign the reason upon which it is interposed. Note a case to which the rule does not apply.</p> <p>3. Horse Theft—Circumstantial Evidence—Charge of the Court. See the statement of the case for evidence on a trial for horse theft which, being wholly circumstantial, is held to have demanded of the trial court a charge upon circumstantial evidence.</p>