# McPherson v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · January 19, 1916 · 79 Tex. Crim. 93

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3978825

## Case

- **Full name:** John McPherson v. the State
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** January 19, 1916
- **Citations:** 79 Tex. Crim. 93; 182 S.W. 1114; 1916 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 74
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Addendum by Harper
- **Judges:** Harper
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3978825

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the court’s remark that “[a]ll this cross-examination of the testimony of this witness could have been eliminated upon objection by the state because the testimony is immaterial” was reversible error
- concluding that the court=s remark that A[a]ll this cross-examination of the testimony of this witness could have been eliminated upon objection by the state because the testimony is immaterial@ was reversible error

## Opinion text

on rehearing.
February 16, 1916.
HARPER, Judge.
The State has filed a motion for rehearing, insisting that bill of exception No. 6 is insufficient in that the answer of the witness is not stated and copies bill No. 7 in the motion. This was not the bill we held sufficient, but it was bill No. 6, which complained of the comment of the court on the weight to be given the testimony of the witness Lyons. Lyons had testified that he went to the home of apjiellant to see if he could find any of the articles stolen out of the burglarized house; that he searched the house and did not find anything they were looking for. After the witness had so testified, bill No. 6 shows that when the State started to cross-examine this witness the court remarked: “All this cross-examination could have been eliminated upon objection by the State,
because the testimony is immaterial.”
(Defendant) : “We reserve an exception to the remark of the court.” The defendant then desired to prove similar testimony to that of Lyons by Detective Martin — to prove by Martin that defendánt had none of the stolen goods at his house. The court refused to permit him to prove these facts by Martin and sustained an objection-to his testimony. Defendant then proceeds in the bill to state that he objected to the remarks of the court as being upon the weight to be given the testimony; and, as the remarks of the court were calculated to and would cause the jury to give no weight to the testimony of Detective Lyons that he searched appellant’s house and found none of the stolen goods in appellant’s possession, we held this bill presented error and are still' of that opinion, and the question is sufficiently presented in the bill to authorize us to review the action of the court.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3978825. Public record. Not legal advice.