History
  • No items yet
midpage
Pride v. State
52 Tex. Crim. 441
| Tex. Crim. App. | 1908
|
Check Treatment

A bill of exceptions shows that while the witness Windom was testifying for the State, he stated that when he was testifying before the grand jury in regard to the person from whom he had bought whisky, he stated that he did not know the man's name from whom he bought the whisky, but described the man as being over middle age, somewhat gray, with gray mustache and of medium size. Several objections were urged to this; it being in the absence of the defendant, was purely hearsay, improper, and because no fact which occurred in the grand jury room was in controversy.

We are of opinion that this exception is well taken under the authority of McKnight v. State, 50 Tex.Crim. Rep.; 16 Texas Ct. Rep., 681. This very question was there discussed and decided adversely to the State, and in consonance with appellant's contention.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Case Details

Case Name: Pride v. State
Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Feb 5, 1908
Citation: 52 Tex. Crim. 441
Docket Number: No. 4181.
Court Abbreviation: Tex. Crim. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.