Gaskin v. State
Tex. Crim. App.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2016Balderas, Juan A/K/A Apache Tex. Crim. App.
- 2016Balderas v. State Tex. Crim. App.
- 2015Fears, Ronald Blake Tex. App.
- 2015Balderas, Juan A/K/A Apache Tex.
- 2015Cochran, Mitchell Dean Tex. App.
- 2015Fears v. State Tex. App.
- 2009Alaa Mohamad Weiss v. State Tex. App.
- 2008Kelly Patterson v. State Tex. App.
- 2003Tatro, Stephen Edward v. State Tex. App.
- 2002John David Brown v. State of Texas Tex. App.
Cites 2 cases
- Moreno v. State
- Wiley v. State
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Flemin Gaskin v. State
Attorneys
- Clyde W. Woody, Houston, for appellant.
- Frank Briscoe, District Attorney, Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., Thomas C. Dunn, Assistants District Attorney, Houston, and Leon Douglas, State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.
The offense is possession of marijuana; the punishment, two years.
In view of our disposition of this case, a recitation of the facts will not be necessary other than to state that bill of exception No. 1 recites the following facts: Each of the arresting officers testified that contemporaneously with the arrest they had prepared a complete report of the transaction in question. The arrest was shown to have occurred some two years prior to the trial. The officers testified that before coming to court they had read the report and were in fact testifying from their, refreshed memory. After each of the officers had testified, appellant made a request upon the prosecutor to produce such report for the purpose of cross-examining the officers. The prosecutor admitted that he had such report in his possession, but the court refused to order him to. deliver the same to appellant’s counsel for the purpose stated, to which appellant objected.
Thereafter, at the hearing on the motion for new trial, appellant again made demand upon the prosecution for production of said report for the purpose of perfecting his bill of exception, but, even though it was stipulated that the prosecutor had said report in his possession, the court declined to order him to produce the same.
In the recent case of Moreno v. State, 170 Texas Cr. Rep. 410, 341 S.W. 2d 455, in explaining our prior holding in Wiley v. State, 169 Texas Cr. Rep. 256, 332 S.W. 2d 725, we said:
“Our holding was that such statements should have been made available for the record for the purpose of showing injury, if there was injury.”
For the error of the court in failing to permit appellant to perfect his bill so that he might show injury, if any occurred, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.