Hamilton v. State
Decision Date | 26 March 1941 |
Docket Number | No. 21490.,21490. |
Citation | 150 S.W.2d 395 |
Parties | HAMILTON v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Falls County; Terry Dickens, Judge.
W. M. Hamilton was convicted for homicide, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Robert D. Peterson, of Marlin, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The appellant is charged with the voluntary killing of one Babe Gates, a negro woman, with his malice aforethought. The punishment assessed is confinement in the penitentiary for twenty-five years.
This is the second appeal in this case. The opinion delivered by this court on the former appeal is reported in 138 Tex.Cr.R. 205, 135 S.W.2d 476, where the material facts constituting the offense are stated. Consequently, we deem it unnecessary to re-state the same here as there is no material difference in the facts proven on this trial and those proven at the former trial.
Upon this trial, as in the former trial, appellant filed a verified motion to quash the indictment on the ground of discrimination against the negro race, of which he is a member, in the appointment of jury commissioners and in the selection of grand and petit jurors, which, he asserts, was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In support of this motion the present district judge testified, in substance, that he had held this office for about four years. At the time he appointed a jury commission to select a grand jury, he selected all white men, and that he had not named a negro on such commission during his tenure of office, and that upon a check back he did not find any negro as far back as 1936 on either commission or grand jury. The grand jury was selected out of sixteen names, all names placed in a hat and the slips drawn out and placed on the lists of the first twelve in the order drawn. He did not recall the name of any negro drawn on the grand jury. He appointed the jury commission who drew the grand jury that found the indictment against appellant. He knew of some negroes who might have made good commissioners. He gave that matter no thought at such time; he only tried to get three good men, and he instructed them not to discriminate at all in their selections; he gave them the poll list and the taxpayers' list, and told them that negroes, when qualified otherwise, might serve on the jury, and not to discriminate between the races. Falls County's population is about 38,000, with about 12,000 or 15,000 negroes.
Mr. Depew, one of the jury commissioners, testified that he, Mr. Cousins and Mr. Gray were the three men appointed by Judge Dickens to select a grand jury and jurors for such term of court. He selected four grand jurors and seventy-two petit jurors, and was personally acquainted with them all so selected by him. There were no negroes on this list. He didn't think he knew any negroes thus qualified. He did not discriminate against any person because he was of the negro race.
Cuyler Cousins, another jury commissioner, testified:
Harold Gray, the third commissioner, testified:
Judge E. M. Dodson, District Judge prior to the present judge, testified:
G. H. Carter resided in Falls County, and practiced law there forty-two years. He had been a county official. He testified:
Mr. Van Pelt, the district clerk, testified that there were no negroes on the grand jury during the six years he served as such clerk; there were some negroes drawn on the petit jury, but none finally served on the jury. He knew some negroes who were able to read and write and were of sober habits. He did not know what per cent of the negroes are thus qualified.
Judge Prentice Oltorf testified that he was district judge of this district for about eight years in 1918 to 1926.
A. L. Hunter, presumptively a negro physician who lived in Marlin, testified:
Janie Belle Ray testified ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Akins v. State of Texas
...racial representation on juries, recent decisions of that court had previously disapproved that procedure. Hamilton v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 114, 150 S.W.2d 395, loc.cit. 400; Hill v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 415, 157 S.W.2d 369, loc.cit. 373, reversed on other grounds, 316 U.S. 400, 62 S.Ct. 11......
-
Thompson v. State
...appellant, and that he did so on advice of counsel, the court's refusal was not an abuse of discretion. See Hamilton v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 614, 150 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.Cr.App.1941). Appellant's sixth ground of error is In his seventh ground of error, appellant complains of the following argum......
-
Hill v. State
...this court. See Murphy v. State, 139 Tex.Cr. R. 552, 141 S.W.2d 634; Seals v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 162, 139 S.W.2d 105; Hamilton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 150 S.W.2d 395; King v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 152 S.W.2d 342. The Supreme Court of the United States has passed upon the question in several ......
-
Davidson v. State
...it must clearly appear that the court abused his discretion and that the appellant was prejudiced by such refusal. Hamilton v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 614, 150 S.W.2d 395, 402; Ford v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 55, 261 S.W. 141; Heidingsfelder v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 351, 81 S.W.2d 510, 517; Elswort......