Henderson v. State

Citations

• 1 Tex. Ct. App. 432

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence.—The credit of a witness may be impeached by proof that he-has made statements out of court contrary to his testimony at the trial; but it is only as to matters relevant to the issue that he can be thus contradicted.</p> <p>2. Same.—In laying the predicate for such contradictory evidence, it is generally necessary, if the statements were verbal, to ask the witness-specifically as to the time, place, and person involved in the supposed contradiction. General questions, whether he has ever said so, or whether he has always told the same story, and the like, are not competent.</p> <p>3. Same.—In thus impeaching a witness the object is, not to disprove his statements under oath, but to discredit him as a witness.</p> <p>4. Same—Charge of the Court.—In a case like the present, where the-verdict depended on the evidence of the prosecuting witness alone, and the defense, after laying the proper predicate, proved that on several occasions she had made statements materially conflicting with her testimony at the trial, the court should, as part of the law applicable to the case, have given in charge to the jury the legal principles controlling the application and effect of the impeaching evidence.</p> <p>5. Embezzlement—Charge of the Court.—On trial of the accused for embezzlement of money intrusted to him by the prosecutrix, he introduced evidence tending to prove that the prosecutrix authorized him to use it, and he asked the court to instruct the jury to acquit him if they believed from the evidence that he was so authorized. Held, that the refusal of the instruction was error.</p> <p>6. New Trial.— When newly-discovered evidence is merely cumulative of the evidence adduced at the trial, it does not entitle the party to a new trial.</p>