History
  • No items yet
midpage
Dudley v. State
24 Tex. Ct. App. 163
| Tex. App. | 1887
|
Check Treatment
Willson, Judge.

With commendable and characteristic candor and fairness, the Assistant Attorney General confesses errors in this conviction, to wit:

1. It was error to permit the witness Shultz to testify as a witness in behalf of the State, over the defendant’s objection, it being shown that said witness had been convicted of felony in this State, which conviction had not been legally set aside, and the said witness not having been legally pardoned for the crime of which he had been convicted—said witness having been conditionally pardoned only. (Carr v. The State, 19 Texas Ct. App., 635.)

*164Opinion delivered November 2, 1887.

2. It was error to reject, when offered as evidence by the defendant, the judgment of conviction showing the conviction of said witness Shultz of a felony. This testimony was offered for the purpose of affecting the credibility of said witness, and for such purpose was admissible. (Bennett v. The State, ante, page 73.)

Because of said errors the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Case Details

Case Name: Dudley v. State
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Nov 2, 1887
Citation: 24 Tex. Ct. App. 163
Docket Number: No. 2655
Court Abbreviation: Tex. 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.