Sweeney v. State

(dissenting).—The brief and argument by the district attorney, Hon. J. A, Thomas, is so clear and convincing that this case has been erroneously reversed. I will condense and adopt it as my opinion. It is:

The majority erred in holding that the testimony of W. M. McCarty as to another theft by defendant of an auto casing or tire was inadmissible. It is proper for the court to permit proof of other offenses and transactions for the purpose of enabling the jury to determine whether they will recommend a suspension of sentence. Appellant had applied for a suspended sentence.

W. M. McCarty…