Valdez v. State.

(Court of Appeals of Texas. Feb. 6, 1892.)

Carrying Dangerous Weapon--Evidence.

Upon trial for carrying a dangerous weapon it is reversible error to allow a witness to testify that defendant had quarreled with and threatened to kill the witness, and that a third person had said that defendant was a bad man.

Indictment of Mauro Valdez for carrying a dangerous weapon. Defendant was convicted, and appeals. Reversed.

Joseph Jones, for appellant. Richard H. Harrison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

White, P. J. The information upon which the defendant was tried and convicted in the court below charged him with carrying on or about his person a pistol, in Val Verde county, on or about the 10th day of July, 1891. At the trial the state introduced, in rebuttal of defendant's testimony, one Frank Reagan, and he testified, over objection of the defendant, as follows: "On the 10th day of July, 1891, I was here in Del Rio. I had been here some time, and know nothing about the defendant's carrying the pistol. I have known the defendant a short time. I first saw him at Flander's Station, when I was tending bar there. His reputation is bad for getting drunk and fighting. The defendant came into the saloon where I was working, and got a drink, and then refused to pay for it; and when asked for pay the defendant drew a knife on the witness, and witness then hit defendant over the head with a gun, thereby bending the barrel of the gun. That when defendant came into the saloon he had a gun, but it was taken away from him, and that witness had heard that defendant had frequently threatened to kill witness. That witness did not know defendant's general reputation in any community for being a peaceable and law-abiding man or otherwise, but had heard Maj. Temple's cook say that he was a bad man. Witness considered defendant a dangerous man; his reputation is bad." Defendant objected to this testimony as irrelevant, hearsay, and wholly disconnected with the matter on trial; and his objection having been overruled, and the evidence allowed to go to the jury, defendant saved his bill of exceptions to same. It was material error for the court to permit this testimony to be introduced over defendant's objection. It was not pertinent to any issue in the case; was prejudicial to the defendant's rights and interests; and calculated to inflame the minds of the jury against him; and, in so far as to what Maj. Temple's cook had said about defendant's reputation, it was unquestionably objectionable, because it was hearsay. For the errors indicated the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. All judges present and concurring.