Summary
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Penagraph's burglary conviction, so a retrial was not barred. However, it reversed and remanded because the trial court improperly permitted the State to impeach a fact witness with "have you heard" questions about the defendant's prior misconduct when the witness had not testified about the defendant's reputation.
Holdings
- The evidence was sufficient to sustain appellant's burglary conviction.
- A defense fact witness who testifies from personal knowledge or personal opinion about the accused's character, without testifying to the accused's reputation, is not a reputation witness subject to impeachment with specific-acts 'have you heard' questions.
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain appellant's burglary conviction.
- Whether the State could impeach a defense fact witness with specific-acts 'have you heard' questions when the witness had testified to personal knowledge and opinion about appellant's character but had not testified to his reputation.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (15)
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S. Ct. 2141, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1978)(followed)
- Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19, 98 S. Ct. 2151, 57 L. Ed. 2d 15 (1978)(followed)
- Lafoon v. State, 543 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)(followed)
- Banks v. State, 510 S.W.2d 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)(followed)
- Mills v. State, 508 S.W.2d 823 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)(followed)
- Brown v. State, 477 S.W.2d 617, 619-620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972)(followed)
- Childs v. State, 491 S.W.2d 907, 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)(overruled)
- Salazar v. State, 494 S.W.2d 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)(disapproved_by_later_authority)
- Navajar v. State, 496 S.W.2d 61 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)(disapproved_by_later_authority)
- Howard v. State, 505 S.W.2d 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)(disapproved_by_later_authority)
Showing top 10 of 15.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…