
    DUNCAN v. STATE.
    (No. 7737.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 14, 1923.)
    Criminal law&wkey;l 168(4) — Witnesses &wkey;48(l) —Unpardoneti convict not competent witness, and refusal on motion to exclude testimony held reversible error.
    Where the evidence on self-defense was conflicting, and on cross-examination witness was shown without objection from the state to have been an unpardoned convict, that disqualified her as a witness, denial of accused’s motion to exclude her testimony was reversible error.
    <S=oFor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numb'ered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tar-rant County; Geo. E. Hosey, Judge.
    George Duncan was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
    Reversed.
    McLean, Scott & Sayers, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
    W. A: Keeling, Atty. Gen., and C. L. Stone, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is manslaughter ; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of three years.

On the issue of self-defense the testimony of appellant and that of Cordie Davis was in conflict.. The privilege of testing her qualification as a witness preliminary to receiving her evidence was denied 'appellant, and on her cross-examination she‘was shown, without objection from the state, to have been an unpardoned convict. This disqualified her as a witness, and appellant’s motion tq exclude her testimony should have been sustained. The statute is discussed and decisions cited in Corzine v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 340, 226 S. W. 686.

The error requires a reversal of the judgment ; and it is so ordered.  