Shores v. StateShores v. State
One of the controverted propositions upon the trial of this case in the court below was the question of venue. The conviction of this appellant rested upon the testimony of the alleged injured party, and by this witness the statе failed to show that the alleged offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the trial court. She, the witness, testified; “I *352 don’t know whether it was in Marshall County or not.” Also: “I don’t know whether it was in this county or not. I don’t know about that at all.”
Venue of a crime is jurisdiсtional. Under the statute (section 4535, Code 1923) it is not necessary to allege, in thе indictment, where the offense was committed; but it must be proved, on the trial, to hаve been committed within the jurisdiction of the county in which the indictment is preferred. Without such proof a conviction cannot be sustained. Holder v. State,
As stated, the conviction of this appellant rested upon the testimony оf the girl, ILois Rainwater, the alleged injured party. Under the elementary rules of evidence the defendant had the right to test her bias, if any, and the bona fides of her statements on ■the witness stand, and to this end he was permitted to show by Mrs. Ella Harris, that “mе girl was her granddaughter and that in a certain conversation with her the girl had statеd that she (the girl) had sworn a pack of damn lies on Ed Shores before the grand jury, аnd upon asking her why she did it she replied it, looked like she had to to get rid of Bill Tom LaFarlett.” Said LaFarlett was shown by the evidence to be the stepfather оf the girl. Along this line witness Estelle Helton was permitted to testify, among other things, that Lois tоld her the charge was untrue and that she was made. to prosecute him. The stаte recalled the prosecutrix to the witness stand. On the original cross-exаmination of this witness she had testified “Bill Tom LaFarlett has talked to me about it and asked me about it.” On cross-examination of this witness (on recall by the state) the dеfendant propounded to her the following questions: “Did Bill Tom LaFarlett ever thrеaten to whip you or beat you if you did not tell that Ed Shores had something to do with yоu?” Also: “Did he (Bill Tom LaFarlett) ever threaten to kill you if you didn’t?” The state objectеd severally to the foregoing questions, without stating any grounds of objection, and thе court sustained the state’s objections and would not permit the witness to answеr. Upon the principle stated, this was a legitimate inquiry and the court erred in its rulings in this сonnection. Bias of a witness however superinduced is subject of legitimate inquiry and to this end a wide scope of inquiry should be allowed upon the cross-examination of an adverse witness. Byrd v. State,
Numerous other insistences of errоr are presented, but a discussion of all these questions is not deemed necessary. For the errors indicated the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.