
    EMERSON v. STATE.
    (No. 8748.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 15, 1925.)
    Witnesses <&wkey;337 (5) — Refusal to instruct county attorney that conviction for felony more than 15 years before was too remote - to be inquired into held reversible error.
    In pi'osecution for misdemeanor theft, court’s refusal to instruct county attorney or defendant’s mo.tion, before defendant took stand as a witness in his own behalf, that defendant’s conviction for a felony more than 15 years before was too remote to be inquired into by state, held reversible error.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from Nacogdoches County Court; A. T. Russell, Judge.
    Waldo Emerson was convicted for misdemeanor theft, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Adams & Moore, of Nacogdoches, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

Appellant was convicted In the county court of Nacogdoches county for the offense of misdemeanor theft and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25 and six months in the county jail.

A statement of the facts is unnecessary further than to say that the state’s testimony was sufficient to support the conviction, and the appellant; testified in his own behalf and gave evidence which, if believed by the jury., would have exonerated him of any connection with the offense.

The only question wp deem it necessary to discuss in the Case is that raised by bill of exceptions No. 5. This bill is sufficient to show that, before the defendant took the stand as a witness in his own behalf, his counsel presented to the court a motion, in which he stated that more than 15 years before that time defendant was convicted of a felony and requested the court, in view of the remoteness of such conviction, to instruct the county attorney that the same was too remote to be inquired into by the state. On hearing said motion, the same was overruled hy the court, and, on the defendant’s testifying to exculpatory facts in his own behalf, the state, on cross-examination, was permitted to prove by the defendant that he was convicted in the district court in 1903 and sent to .the penitentiary for two years and that he served his term out. for the offense of theft.

This is not a new question in this state. It has been definitely decided that this ruling of the trial court is reversible error. We can see no good purpose that would be served by again writing at length on the ques-tionj and content ourselves with saying that the appellant’s contention is sustained by many authorities in Texas. Bullington v. State, 78 Tex. Cr. R. 187, 180 S. W. 679; Couch v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 27, 245 S. W. 692, 25 A. L. R. 1359; Bowers v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 71 S. W. 284; Dyer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 77 S. W. 456. For other eases collated, see paragraph 5 under section 170, Branch’s Penal Code.

Because of the error of the court in the matter above discussed, it is our conclusion that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.  