Washington v. State

Citations

• 17 Tex. Ct. App. 197
• 1884 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 198

Syllabus

<p>1. Burglary.— Indictment for burglary with the intent to commit theft is not objectionable because it fails to specify the property which the defendant intended to steal. A different rule prevails with respect to indictments for theft; and in them a description of the property stolen is essential to its identification. But the statute defining burglary with intent to commit theft comprehends all the elements of that offense; and it is sufficient to allege them in the words of the statute. See the opinion on the question.</p> <p>2. Same —Practice —Evidence.—A statement of the wife of a defendant on trial for a criminal offense, made to a witness, unless made in the presence and with the acquiescence of the defendant, is purely hearsay evidence, and as such is, primarily, inadmissible against the defendant.</p> <p>3. Same —Cross-examination of a Witness —Impeaching Testimony—Case Stated.— The wife of a defendant on trial, like any other witness, is subject to cross-examination, but a cross-examination should be confined to the matters about which the witness testified on the examination in chief. The defendant’s wife in this case, in her examination in chief, made no allusion whatever to meat. On cross-examination she was asked by the State and denied that, in the absence of the defendant, she told the State’s witness K. that there was no meat in the house. The witness K. testified that, on the occasion referred to, she, the defendant’s wife, in the absence of the defendant, told him that there was no meat on the place, and that she had cooked the last that morning for breakfast. Held, that such evidence, under the circumstances, was inadmissible for any purpose, and, in view of the facts of the case, was prejudicial to the rights of the defendant.</p> <p>4. Same — Charge of the Court.— Even had the evidence referred to been admissible for the purpose of affecting the credibility of the wife of the defendant as a witness in his behalf, the court should have instruc