Cravens v. State

to exer- power attempted that he stance the already properly attached to

cise had him precluding

judicial department, thus finally had dis- until after this Court

act appellant’s contention that

posed of and sentence were

judgment of conviction

void. reasons, I foregoing

For the above gives majority the reasons the

dissent to relief, applicant but concur granting appli- grant it reaches order

its result

cant relief. CRAVENS, Appellant,

Jared Ellison Texas, Appellee.

The STATE

No. 366-84. Texas, Appeals of

Court of Criminal

En Banc.

March Houston, Odom, Jr., ap- A.

Wendell pellant. Holmes, Jr., Atty., and Dist. B.

John Jr., Cochran, Atty., Dist. Asst. E. Winston Huttash, Atty., State’s Houston, Robert Austin, for the State. tude,

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION they worthy not more of FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW belief than such a one.” MILLER, Judge. Twenty years Smith, supra, later this proper Court held that it was for a defense Appellant by jury was convicted a of two witness to be asked on cross-examination if counts rape pursuant of of a child to for Smith, she is prostitute. Citing a common mer Code, V.T.C.A. Penal 21.09.1 Pun supra, Feather, supra, Court allowed ishment was assessed the court at 12 years confinement in same of a defense witness Depart the Texas upon ment of appeal, Feather, Corrections. On the Hous cross-examination. how- Appeals ton Court of ever, expanded upon affirmed the convic by holding this published tion in a opinion. Cravens v. only is so where the “[t]his State, 663 S.W.2d 668 (Tex.App. good asked in faith and an an- affirmative — Houston 1983). [1st Dist.] expected.” swer is granted appellant’s We petition for dis upon Feather, Also relied supra, cretionary review to examine the continued Myers 301, 149 Tex.Crim. viability of holding of cases like Smith (1946), ordinarily S.W.2d 91 which held that 455, 86 Tex.Crim. a may witness occupation be asked their (1919), and Feather v. 169 Tex.Crim. asked, and that may upon a “witness (1960), 333 S.W.2d 851 held cross-examination, if pros- she is a common aiding of the factfinder’s cred titute” impeached upon but cannot be ibility determination, a female witness given.2 Further, held that “[a] on asked cross-examination whether she impeached witness by proof of is a prostitute.” “common The nexus be specific acts of misconduct which have not tween truthtelling particular and this occu eventuated into an indictment or convic- pation expounded was first upon by Judge tion.” basically This limitation has been Henderson in McCray v. 38 Tex. 38.29, Legislature codified our in Art. Crim. 44 S.W. 170 Judge Hen V.A.C.C.P.3 derson stated that: appeals, The court of opinion its in this “In experience, it is known that case, appellant’s complaint dismissed stat- persons who are morally degraded so as ing that is well established that a ply their “[i]t vocation as common witness on be asked cross-examination tutes are not plane on a with the mass of if she people prostitute.” is a common legitimate who We believe follow and honora- vocations, “impeachment” practice ble that since this in the was integrity. matter of As rule, justified solely by a experience the common are no more capable telling of day 1890’s, or truth than one mores of the who since has been felony, Legislature convicted of a codify or of has since seen fit to some misdemeanor involving turpi- prohibition against impeachment by pri- Repealed Leg., p. case, Acts 68th eh. “The a fact that defendant in a criminal September case, been, effective or a in a criminal is or has indictment, charged by information or com- also, plaint, Conway 2. See with the commission of an offense that, against the criminal laws of this S.W. 401 which held cross-ex- States, amination, any United or other State shall not be State could ask a defense witness man, admissible in evidence if he was a on the trial of confidence followed the occu- racket, pation working impeaching criminal case for the knife and was a “But, any person as though common thief. a witness unless on trial under [the witness] indictment, compelled questions, complaint such deny to answer the information should or a resulted, thief, pursued occupations suspended that he final conviction has or a the State would be at its end sentence aside, ...” has been and has not been set person placed or such has been probation V.A.C.C.P., period probation and the pertinent 3. Article has not states in expired.” part: misconduct,4 reputable, it as- reanalysis is in or acts of When credibility. sumedly adds to a witness’ order. Contra, repu- occupation is not so when the fact, eyes of the trier of table in the First we must define the nature and im- credibility just as true detracts from inquiry. not a scope of our This is Indeed, peachment evidence does. prior simple impeachment by proof testimony often referred to this court has misconduct; wit, prostitution. If acts of adding to the con- “impeachment,” as thus were, 38.29, Art. simple a reference to concurring perpetuated fusion that is V.A.C.C.P., dispose of the matter. would opinion. Rather, query concerns the interrela this then, occupa- is inquiry, Our whether tionship entirely an different eviden- with probative of his or tion of a witness is so that, in tiary admissibility rule of any preju- credibility outweigh her as stance, purpose accomplishes the same of occupation might simulta- effect that dicial the admis impeachment. That rule allows engender by revelation. neously its sibility testimony concerning a witness’ of of “[qjuestions place to the general, as occupation in the trier of fact. order to aid witness, occupation of the residence and hand, Yeager v. Germane to the case at like, may for the and the be asked (Tex. 256 S.W. placing identifying him and before of Cr.App.1923), interpreted the rule as fol they may judge of jury from which facts lows: weight given his standing and the to be his affecting held that as her “We have also inquiry an into a wit- testimony.” may female be asked credit a enough of occupation probative is ness’ prostitute [citing she is not a common Tex.Jur.3d, credibility to be admissible. As we McCray, supra, and other § cases]. Evidence, (1984). it, of understand this latter character occupation at A as to the permissible, is cross-examination special han- prostitution—deserves hand — ground acts of upon the that isolated however, dling, it de facto reveals because shown to im- immoral conduct pursuant to V.T. prior acts of misconduct witness, peach proof of such isolat- a § 43.02, Code, of which evidence C.A. Penal [sic], is ed acts inhibited oth- supra. No prohibited by Art. occupation, history, facto re- “occupation” would de er always legitimate misconduct, i.e., etc. a witness loiter- common veal acts of etc., criminal, Underhill’s subjects investigation. er, burglar, common § (3rd Ed.), admissibility similar to the 387 at 915.” Cr. Evidence has a rule earlier, un- question.5 As discussed one (Emphasis supplied) fact, 38.29, V.A.C.C.P.,1965, occupations facto which de all other 4. Article set out in n. 732a, V.A.C.C.P., 1925, already to prior of misconduct seem origins reveal acts in Art. finds its admissibility. subject Leg., to a different rule p. 52nd ch. added Acts as follows: which read § the accused for the state or for "A witness case, your occupation?’ be asked “What a defendant in a criminal "The fact that case, is, occupation, though whether known to his or has in a criminal or a witness not, jury indictment, been, is such that the or charged by or cross-examiner information However, testimony. if in- his will distrust complaint, commission of an offense with the occupa- witness what his against of the stead criminal laws of this is, States, him if should ask any the cross-examiner shall not be tion or other State United engaged in some named discredita- is not trial of he in evidence on the admissible improper.” occupation, the impeaching ble purpose of case for the criminal Law, Tex.Jur.3d, Criminal any person unless on trial under as a witness (Tex- Ray, indictment, Texas Law of Evidence complaint As stated in a information or such 1980), resulted, Prac- 1 Texas suspended 3rd ed. as Practice has or final conviction 586: not been set tice been and has sentence has aside, civil and criminal cases witness placed “In both person been or such has pursued he asked what probation probation period of has not and the engaged. But in what business he was expired.” 38.29, supra, der Art. re- prosecution fense and She also witnesses. garding impeachment of witnesses is that a oc- regarding specific testified events that witness, by testifying, places credibility his alleged curred on or about the time of the issue, opposing party may and the seek offenses, proximity sleeping impeach credibility by proof quarters home, arrange- sleeping at their convicted, the witness has felony been of a at ments the motel used on visits involving offense or a misdemeanor beach, inability appellant and the turpitude. alleged by complain- to commit the acts then, On balance determining when ant. credibility issue, of a witness is the appellant’s Germane to contention probative knowledge whatever value improp that this chief defense witness was prostitute the witness is a common has is erly impeached, the record fol shows the outweighed by the legislatively mandated lowing during occurred the cross-examina prohibition against impeachment by prior Cathy tion of Cravens: ques acts of misconduct. To allow such a purpose, objection, “Q. true, tion for this over is er Cravens, you Isn’t it Ms. conflict, ror. To the extent are in the prostitute? have worked as a common cases, McCray including Smith, line of object “MR. CONKLIN: I would to that Feather, Myers, supra and jury.6 and ask the Court to remove the 120 Tex.Crim. 46 S.W.2d 307 you “THE COURT: Would wait out in (1932),are overruled. room, jury please, gen- the ladies and Turning bar, now to the case at the com- tlemen? plainant was the year adopted thirteen old (At jury this time the is retired to the daughter appellant. Complainant’s jury following proceed- room and the appellant mother and were divorced and ings presence are had out of the appellant had Complainant remarried. con- jury.) tinued to appellant spent visit and alternate Judge, my objection “MR. CONKLIN: is weekends with him present wife, and his going rap that he is into a sheet here Cravens, Cathy and their family. asking and he is her if she as a worked Appellant alleges in his first and second prostitute. common That evidence grounds of error that the trial court erred not He can if admissible. ask her she in allowing prosecutor the improperly anything, was convicted of he impeach witness, Cathy Cravens, the going rap showing into a sheet and if her she prostitute was jury attempt to the in an to inflame being and not negative bound her an- their minds and infer that she has been swer. something. only convicted of He is Cathy Cravens was called as a defense inferring things these to inflame the witness and regarding testified the rela- jury. minds the tionship complainant, between the com- “THE For COURT: what mother, plainant’s appellant. and Her tes- you offering testimony?7 this timony established the fact that there was Impeachment. “MR. EGGLESTON: To animosity family extreme between the impeach this witness’s character complainant family ap- and the showing turpitude. moral Indeed, pellant. animosity this reached degree fight such a that a “THE occurred COURT: The Court overrule will hall outside of the courtroom de- objection. between Though appellant’s objection criminal cases it seems that he not be was not to business, specific question, asked if he was in a where the form of this we note that it is improper. such business is unlawful.” See footnote 5. See Cadle v. ques-

S.W.2d 147 disallowed Emphasis testimony supplied by in this you bootlegger?" tion "[a]re opinion. writer of this May “Q. “MR. I by your CONKLIN: see those eases I’m bound I answer. you, Judge? disprove he handed I’d like to your couldn’t under impeach law, he know what wants her can I? on. No, “A. sir. “THE COURT: Read case. The Though proffered by prosecutor Appeals Court of Criminal held that “impeachment,” judge clearly relied on you could ask the witness that. supra, Sanford, which relies on the case, I view the facts this rule McCray throughout line of cases discussed testimony that the is admissible. opinion. it is clear that the trial testimony— of her view judge allowed the “MR. CONKLIN: This is a 1931 case.8 improper. that we have deemed case, particular From this the facts do above, For the reasons we hold apply to this case here at all. The improper clearly that this was only question prosecutor ought constituted error. The of whether to ask Ms. be able Cravens is she not, this constituted harmful error un- felony has ever been convicted of a derstandably, ap- briefed the court of involving turpi- a misdemeanor peals part nor was it a of that court’s during past years. tude ten being decision in this This reviewed Court.

“THE COURT: The court will overrule cause, therefore, will be remanded to the objection. Bring jury. appeals court of for a determination of the except “MR. CONKLIN: We would harmfulness this error. respectfully move for a mistrial. “THE COURT: Overruled. (review In his third of error granted though not al which was also bring “MR. CONKLIN: Before earlier), appellant alleges luded to that the in, jury you prose- would instruct the allowing prosecutor trial court erred pull rap up cutor not to sheet guilt appellant by indicating to infer to the jury? front of the person that he associated with bad n n n ! n # character, namely, Cathy Cravens. It is a “Q. my question appellate Inasmuch as last to that the issue on review

you appeal comport objection was not answered or was at least must with the audible, not I if you objection would ask would If the at trial is made at trial. respond argument appeal, to the same different than the on way? nothing preserved same review. See (Tex.Cr. State, Hodge 631 754 v. S.W.2d no, “A. I said I was not. App.1982); 629 Vanderbilt v. denied, (Tex.Cr.App.1981), 709 cert. S.W.2d 910, 102 1760, L.Ed.2d 169 “Q. 456 U.S. S.Ct. 72 you Well let me ask this. If in fact (1982); State, 607 somebody prostitute, and Nelson v. S.W.2d has worked as a bar, acting, (Tex.Cr.App.1980). In the case at they develop do a sense of do objection impeachment of the they not? the trial to “Q. Cravens? n That’s # part of the s}s n craft, isn’t Ms. sjc it, ^[*] issue was tion of defense witness court of guilt by appeals, before did not association. Just as it is not the trial court or the preserve properly before ques “A. I don’t know. this Court. prosecutor clearly Apparently This im- v. statement Sanford reported plies jury 46 S.W.2d As would like the that there is more he Reporter, Southwestern a 1931 case fronts the improper hear and is an comment. page applying of Sanford to the asked. § judgment

The appeals of the court 748; tion. 37 Tex.Jur.3d Evidence reversed and the cause is remanded to 25 Tex.Jur.3d Criminal Law 3336. court for determination of the harmfulness Especially actions, in criminal a witness of the trial error. It is so ordered. “may not specific be asked he was in a business, where such business is unlaw- ”

CLINTON, Judge, concurring. § 657, Practice ful, op. 1 Texas Ray, cit. 586.1 Common to both civil and criminal ac tions is questions rule that as to question posed by the instant case the place residence, occupation and “back prosecutor true, is: “Isn’t it Mrs. Cra- ground” of a witness be asked vens, you have as a worked place jury order to before the facts from prostitute?” It improper an they may judge standing his inquiry because the particu- is directed to a weight testimony. his Wil lar discreditable business or (Tex. liams v. 604 S.W.2d that is unlawful. See authorities cited in Cr.App.1980); Carrillo v. § 657, Ray, supra, n. 1 Texas Practice (Tex.Cr.App.1978); S.W.2d Elam 586.2 (Tex.Cr.App. S.W.2d by appellant The contention advanced 1975); 32-33, 37 Tex.Jur.3d Evidence Appeals the Court of Criminal was that the § 666. contemplates But that rule trial court in allowing improper erred im- questions part are of a “preliminary peachment ap- of Cravens. The court of inquiry” directed to a witness called peals rejected that contention with this: party asking questions. Williams “It is well established that a witness State, supra; State, supra; Carrillo v. be asked cross-examination if she State, supra; Tex.Jur.3d, Elam v. su- prostitute. is a common pra. They may form, leading even be State, 46 307 (Tex.Crim.App. preliminary or introducto- 1932); Feather v. 333 S.W.2d ry Ray, (Third matters. Law of Evidence 853-4 (Tex.Crim.App.1960). Edition) 576, 1 Texas Practice 533. Feather, expressly court held When the exercise is done on crossexa- that a witness be asked cross- mining a witness party, for the adverse examination she is a common however, questions occupation about or tute, question good where the is asked in business serve a different pur- intent and faith and an affirmative answer is ex- pose: to attack the credibility of that wit- pected. The record shows that Mrs. Cra- ness. Where the effort is to discredit a prostitution, vens had been arrested for witness on account of the nature of busi- prosecutor stayed and that the within the occupation, ness or propriety of such a proper impeachment guidelines. Appel- question is not balancing determined the lant’s third of error is overruled.” suggested

test majority opinion. the It Cravens v. 663 S.W.2d 673-674 is not a matter probative of whether value 1983). (Tex.App. [1st] knowledge of — Houston of the business or implicated of Thus outweighs a witness is another prejudicial its ef- impeachment: simply may fect. The test is that a the form of the crossexaminer question put ask an proper “any question the witness. A adverse witness that your impair is: What is tends to the force testimony, business or occu- of his pation? him, improper question An discrediting is one that notwithstanding that asks if the engaged witness is not in some degrade the also tends to particular occupa- witness,” discreditable or business 37 Tex.Jur.3d Evidence emphasis supplied throughout by Cravens, 1. All 2. Had the been "Mrs. what is your occupation?” opinion writer of this and she had unless otherwise indi- answered "com- prostitute,” mon different today. we would be cated. confronted with a problem we need not address —one That appeals guidance.” the court of which for 32 Tex. Carroll v. found to be “well established” is derived Cr.R. S.W. See O.C. rule, from such the most recent case it 38.01, through and its successors Article support Feather, supra. cited in One Y.A.C.C.P.3 digest, Digest 2nd, 51 West’s Texas “Wit supra, Carroll v. the Court § 344(2), nesses” indicates there has subject examined common law on “a opinion point then, been an on the since and is, discussion; opposition much and Shepard’s Texas Citations shows that whether can be to an- compelled a witness has proposi Feather not been cited for that degrading him, swer a question collateral tion until Mendieta issue, to the main but relevant to his cred- 1983), (Tex.App. Worth — Port it,” and found “the be authorities cannot review, pending grant and reconciled.” In that circumstance court below in cause. the instant Court stated: Stayton 32 Tex.Cr.R. therefore, may, “We follow the authori- sought prove the accused reasoning appeals strongest ties whose through crossexamining a witness for judgment, to our and adopt the rule prosecution no legitimate that she “had truth, which to elucidate tends occupation, prostitute, was a common and is the object of all rules of evidence.” way;” her living made in that the State S.W. at 100-101. objected testimony was excluded. particular In the “impeachment” class of at Court, Writing Judge for up- Davidson here, English digest issue taken from an ruling held that relevancy because evidence, law of the rule opted for is proposed testimony apparent” “not was essence that a wit- crossexamination exception that the bill of did not state the questions ness asked tend “to attained, object to be but on the character,” by injuring shake his credit his presented face of what succinctly stat- compelled answer “however ed: issue, irrelevant to the facts and how- solely “It could pur- not be used disgraceful ever the answer to him- pose disgracing witness self, except might ex- where eyes jury. impeaching It was not pose him criminal charge.” to a Ibid. testimony.” concluded that there was the Court prescribed Under by every circumstances allowing prove no error in State procedure, code of criminal from article testifying from a accused through party O.C. 688 Article has the witness was then under indictment for allowed testimony been to attack of his Id., theft. at 102.4 except showing own witness in manner Building 36 Tex. on Brittain However, until “bad character.” Article (1896), Cr.R. 758 in S.W. 38.29, the same codes were “silent as to Carroll, supra, turns in this stands on by methods which one attack the cred- first the approved State the case which ibility by opposing of a witness offered the kind of party,” referring “impeachment” courts in the instead to “the McCray rules of evidence known to the law 44 S.W. common v. Tex.Cr.R. every gone," provides: Article 38.01 other virtue has the Court declared against teaching proposition that so “the of hu- “The rules known to of evidence the com- require England, experience should to law of in civil man ... as the fact mon both and crimi- cases, govern affirmatively nal shall in the trial of criminal be shown.” Its view was that own State, except they in where degraded, actions are in “[a]mong since the dissolute and provisions with of this conflict Code or of naturally expect do not this best seek or to find some other statute of the State.” manhood), wjithout proof to characteristic fairly contrary, jury may assume that from Noting Supreme Court of Texas had said fled, has immoral and criminal character truth Adm'r, in Boon v. Weather’s 23 Tex. with virtues.” 24 S.W. other at 101. “may character still one of vicious truth, priceless though preserve the virtue of to excluding err in the witnesses called (1898). making the rule Reasons Henderson, Judge viz: given by were the state’s witnesses were prove that experience, “In common it is known prostitutes.” common morally degraded as persons who are so Id., 44 at 172. ply prosti- to as common their vocation Though expressly did then the Court plane the mass of tutes are not on a with so, party “the say it would follow that people legitimate and honora- who follow by is bound the answer vocations, integrity. ble the matter of given.” 120 Tex.Cr.R. v. rule, they no more As a capable telling the than one who Without truth S.W.2d felony, has of a or of been convicted support, in Feather citing any authority for involving turpi- some misdemeanor further supra, the Court added a tude, worthy are no more “only where condition— one; belief than such a and we see no good affirmative an asked faith and an reason, good when a witness is tendered So, id., expected,” at 854. there swer is by party, either and testifies as to some to the matter stood in 1960 — and stands case, why material issue it should day. cross-examination, permitted, on [sic] reanaly- Today majority undertakes a prove illegal he follows some or dis- sis, “balancing con- resorts to a test” and reputable living. vocation for a As for matter, credibility we think it is cludes that on the issue of of a within court, always, sound discretion of the probative witness “whatever value knowl- witness, the crossexamination of a edge prosti- that the witness is a permit calling to be shown the or busi- outweighed by legislatively tute has is witness, by ness followed such his resi- impeachment prohibition against mandated dence, [Excerpt etc. from Wilbur plain by prior acts of misconduct.” The Flood, (cited 16 Mich. in Thomp. 40-43 precise question connotation Trials, 404) p. omitted.]” prosecutor posed to Mrs. Cravens is that Id., 44 S.W. at 171.5 Permission was limit she committed had not been con- had ed, however, grant, to terms of the for the prior victed of criminal offenses of Court added: tution, Code, denounced V.T.C.A. Penal agree “While we to the rule that a wit- § 43.02(a). Earlier of im- ness on crossexamination can interro- peachment that fact could shown gated as to matters which involve moral charging introducing relevant instruments. turpitude, either on account of conviction 310, 234 Hogue v. 155 Tex.Cr.R. crime, or on account of some avoca- (1950); Carroll tion, yet we would not be understood as thirty ago, supra. years But more than witness, holding that a on such cross-ex- perhaps Hogue, supra, in the wake of im- amination can be contradicted or Legislature practice in- limited that matters, regard peached in to such nor conviction, suspended stances of a final origi- that other witnesses be called unexpired probation. See Acts sentence nally prove against matters Leg., p. ch. 814. Those 52nd authorities, As witness. stated limitations were carried forward a trial of collateral this would involve through Article V.A.C.C.P. issues, prove and would often intermina- “balancing” any a nor other kind of And hold that the court did not neither ble. Though quoted a female has been above and the understand that witness what excerpt error crossexamination if she is not a common later be relied on to find no would permissible "upon allowing crossexamina- tute is that the in the State to ask on living history, occupation, always of a she was etc. witness are tion of a witness who had said children, legitimate subjects investigation. she had ever Underhill’s with her three whether 646, (3d Ed.) State, married, State, Yeager Mobley 387.” v. 89 Tex.Cr.R. Cr. Evidence been v. 914, 124, 531, 534, to S.W. 915 the Court came 96 Tex.Cr.R. 256 535 232 756 rejected

test is to en- needed to determine whether That the conclusion has since been legislative prohibition. legislative prohibitions predecessors force a clear by 38.29, supra, strongly suggests to Article any Nor is there indication that in allow- rejected that the rule itself was as well. ing judge applied any the trial “balancing test.” When asked the Certainly primary espoused rationale proffer prosecuting of his at- extending by McCray opinion for torney replied, “Impeachment. impeach To by common law rule fashioned Carroll showing this witness’s character moral tur- not valid in other context. What was pitude.” promptly The court overruled the by judges considered before the turn of the Yet, objection. ordinarily general mor- bad century experience” is not as “common provable impeach al character is not a necessarily verity today. some Without witness. 567 S.W.2d Shannon support fresh indicia of for the former cit, (Tex.Cr.App.1978); op Ray, proposition, upon personal it is an assault § 645, Nor Texas Practice 572.6 dignity giving of a witness testimonial evi inquiry such an addressed to a witness by dence under to “shake his credit oath impeachment. Leal v. through prying injuring his character” State, 614 S.W.2d 837-838 and n. 3 behavior, questions about sexual conduct cit, (Tex.Cr.App.1981). Ray, op which, though deemed offen or activities “only excep- Texas Practice 573-574. The some, yet prosecuted by sive have not been tion” is the of a female witness on Randolph final conviction. crossexamination as whether she is a com- (Tex.Cr.App.1973); see S.W.2d prostitute, question- then the mon and even Brown v. 168 Tex.Cr.R. Id, er is her n. 7. bound answer. (1959) and S.W.2d 956-957 Thrash v. (Tex.Cr.App. 482 S.W.2d The decision of the Court relied on 1972). cause, prosecutor judge in and the trial 120 Tex.Cr.R. stage place The is not the courtroom (1932), correctly found: only eye play that be moralistic long “It has been the in this court anachronism; McCray of a beholder. is an that a asked on cross-ex- evaporated effect have its force and prostitute, amination is she is a common time. party asking question is and that the judg- I concur in the For reasons given, and cannot bound ment Court. impeach call other witnesses to her testi- [Citing mony disprove her answer. TEAGUE, J., joins. State, supra, and a host of its McCray v.

progeny.]”

However, ante, McCray as demonstrated

goes supra, and back to Carroll v. perception Court of “the Carroll required it

teaching experience” of human leading dispute opinion of the Su-

preme Court Texas Boon v. Weather’s ff.,

Adm’r, opt supra, at 678 order to its conclu-

a common law rule which led to allowing that there no error

sion prove from a defense witness that

State to for theft.

he was then under indictment great majority country, veracity and in this does not so consist- view a lack of "[T]hat character, Texas, ently general jurisdictions, including with a as exclude evidence coincide bad persuasive proof general to make of bad morals moral character.” veracity appears soundest of bad to be the ...

Case Details

Case Name: Cravens v. State

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Mar 27, 1985

Citation: 687 S.W.2d 748

Docket Number: 366-84

Court Abbreviation: Tex. Crim. App.