Summary
The appellant pleaded guilty to theft from the person after a wristwatch was taken from a sleeping soldier. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that testimony referring to the appellant's prior imprisonment was inadmissible and sufficiently prejudicial that a jury instruction to disregard it was ineffective, reversing and remanding the conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether testimony that the defendant had previously returned from the penitentiary was admissible when the defendant pleaded guilty and did not testify.
- Whether the trial court's instruction to disregard the inadmissible testimony cured its prejudicial effect.
- Whether admission of the testimony required reversal when the jury imposed the maximum punishment.
Holdings
- When a defendant pleads guilty and does not testify, testimony that the defendant previously served time in the penitentiary is not admissible to affect the defendant's credibility or for any other legitimate purpose.
- An instruction to disregard does not cure inadmissible testimony when the testimony is so highly prejudicial that it could not effectively be withdrawn from the jury's consideration.
Key quotations
“Therefore, the objectional testimony was not admissible as affecting his credibility as a witness, nor for any other legitimate purpose in the case.” (360)
“We think there is merit in his contention inasmuch as the jury imposed the highest penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged notwithstanding the fact that appellant had pleaded guilty.” (360)
Factual background
Salinas and Paul R. Gonzales were charged with privately taking Frederick W. Eberlein's wristwatch while Eberlein slept on a porch in San Antonio. Police officers observed two men going through the pockets of sleeping soldiers and arrested Salinas and Gonzales as they attempted to flee. The watch was found near the place where Salinas had run, and Salinas entered a plea of guilty without testifying. The prosecutor then elicited testimony that Salinas had previously returned from the penitentiary, and the jury imposed the highest punishment prescribed for the offense.
Procedural history
Salinas was convicted of theft from the person in the trial court after entering a plea of guilty. During the trial, the prosecution elicited testimony that Salinas had previously returned from the penitentiary. The trial court instructed the jury to disregard the testimony but refused to discharge the jury. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The cause was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.