
    PATRICK v. STATE.
    (No. 9542.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 9, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law &wkey;>376—Evidence of defendant’s character inadmissible on state-’s case in chief.
    Evidence of defendant’s bad reputation is inadmissible while state is making its case in chief, and before defendant has offered any evidence of reputation.
    2. Witnesses <&wkey;268(2)—Police officers subject to same rules as other witnesses.
    Police officers, like other witnesses, should be confined in their testimony to relevant facts, and required on cross-examination to answer any question reflecting their means of knowledge.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from Jefferson County Court, at Law; C. N. Ellis, Judge.
    Cleve Patrick was convicted of keeping a bawdy house, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    E. H. Blalock, of Port Arthur, and Blain & Jones, of Beaumont, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

The offense is keeping a bawdy house, and the punishment is a fine of $200 and 20 days in jail.

-The ? state placed on the stand a police officer of Port Arthur, and proved by him that he had known the defendant for a number of years, and that his reputation is bad. This testimony was offered by the state in making its case in chief, and before the defendant had testified or offered any evidence as to his reputation. It was properly ob-jeeted to, and the court permitted the witness to make the statement. This ruling was in contravention of the statute and of all the authorities bearing on the subject in this state. *

By another police officer the state proved that the reputation of the appellant is bad, and on cross-examination, permitted this police officer to say that he could name the parties that he had heard say that his-reputation was had, but that it was not necessary for him to name them; whereupon counsel for appellant asked the court to force the witness to answer the question, and the court replied that it is immaterial. We desire to call the court’s attention to the fact in this case that, when these police officers testify, they are subject to the same rules as gov,ern any other witness. Their testimony should be confined to the relevant facts in the case, and they should be forced to answer any question which might reflect their means of knowledge with reference to the matters about which they testify. The entire record reflects the fact that these officers were permitted to make statements to the jury that are not in accordance with the rules of evidence as disclosed by the precedents in this state. We repeat that on another trial their testimony should be confined to matters within their knowledge that are pertinent to the issues involved.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment is 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. 
      ig^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     