
    WATTS v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 5, 1912.)
    1. Witnesses (§ 48) — Competency — Conviction 03? Cbime.
    Under the express provision of Code Cr. Proe. 1911, art. 788, subd. 3, one who has been convicted of felony, and who has not had the conviction legally set aside, or obtained a legal pardon, is disqualified from testifying as a witness.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 109-115; Dec. Dig. § 48.]
    2. Witnesses (§ 78) — Best Evidence —■ Pbooe oe Conviction — Judgment and Sentence.
    Upon proper objection, the state may prevent a witness for it from testifying orally as to his conviction, and may require the defendant to produce the proper judgment of conviction and sentence.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 195-200; Dec. Dig. § 78.]
    Appeal from Nacogdoches County Court; F. P. Marshall, Judge.
    Richard Watts was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    V. E. Middlebrook, of Nacogdoches, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
       For other,.cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key N'o. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, J.

The appellant was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol.

The state introduced two witnesses, who testified clearly and positively that on the occasion charged in the indictment they saw the appellant have a pistol; that in a row that occurred between him and others he pulled his pistol off of his person, held it in his hand, and presented it. In addition to this, the state introduced another witness, and before he testified as to the facts of the case appellant proved by him, without objection by the state, that he had served a full term in the penitentiary for a felony, and had never been pardoned, nor his citizenship restored to him. The appellant then objected to his testifying, because he was an unpardoned convict. The statute expressly disqualifies such a witness from testifying. Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 788, subd. 3. The state, upon proper objection, could have prevented the witness from testifying orally about his conviction, etc., and have required the defendant to produce the proper judgment of conviction, sentence, etc.; but, not having done this, the witness being permitted to testify clearly presents reversible error. White v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 177, 26 S. W. 72, and Moore v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 266, 45 S. W. 809.

Whether or not appellant had the pistol on this occasion was expressly denied by him in his testimony, and in addition he had several witnesses who also, in substance, so testified. The question of whether or not he had a pistol was, therefore, the material question in the case. Permitting the disqualified witness to testify is, therefore, reversible error.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.  