Scott v. State
| Decision Date | 03 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 33777,33777 |
| Citation | 352 S.W.2d 726,171 Tex.Crim. 568 |
| Parties | Isaac SCOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
[171 TEXCRIM 568] Florence, Garrison & Holt, by F. L. Garrison, Gilmer, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
The conviction is for murder; the punishment, five years.
The disposition hereof makes a summary of the facts unnecessary.
In its brief, the state does not seek an affirmance of this case because the jury, after retiring to deliberate, received new testimony which was prejudicial to the appellant.
Appellant's amended motion for a new trial was sworn to by him and supported by the affidavits of Jurors Tucker, Chase, and Wisenhunt. The motion recites that from the beginning of their deliberations, which continued several hours, until shortly before they returned their verdict of guilty, 9 jurors were for a conviction and Jurors Tucker, Chase and Wisenhunt were for acquittal. It further alleged that shortly before they unanimously voted guilty, Juror Tucker called Juror Chase to one side and told her that he had heard through people for whom the appellant had worked that he was a pretty tough person among the Negroes.
At the hearing of the motion, Juror Tucker testified that after they had been deadlocked for some time, he called Juror Chase aside and told her, but not the others, that he had heard [171 TEXCRIM 569] some of the boys the appellant worked for at the store say that appellant was pretty tough among the other Negroes; and that they could be wrong in voting for an acquittal, but if she wanted to they would continue to vote for an acquittal.
Mrs. Chase testified that after the jury had been deliberating for a long time Juror Tucker called her aside and said:
'Well, I'm with you as long as you want to go along with it, but I want to call your attention to the fact that you might not know' said, 'This is a bad Negro and he has a bad reputation and it is something you might take into consideration, * * *.' She further stated:
'But when Mr. Tucker said that he was a mean Negro, that he had a bad reputation, perhaps we could be wrong, I agreed perhaps we might be wrong, we could be wrong.'
While testifying, Mrs. Wisenhunt, one of the three jurors for acquittal, stated that when it appeared that they could not agree, she said that although she believed he acted in self-defense she would vote for five years if Jurors...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pamplin v. Mason
...for new trial to protect against prejudice. See e. g., Williams v. State, 1955, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 202, 283 S.W.2d 239; Scott v. State, 1962, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 568, 352 S.W.2d 726. The federal district court, in granting the writ of habeas corpus, found that the state court's denial of venue change,......
-
Baldonado v. State, s. 13-87-029-C
...discretion in failing to find that the outside evidence was received. Compare, Bearden, supra, 648 S.W.2d at 692-93; Scott v. State, 352 S.W.2d 726, 727 (Tex.Crim.App.1962) (other jurors unable to remember if they made statements, State did not controvert evidence of misconduct); See also, ......
-
Adams v. State, 44820
...was no showing that any statement by any juror as to race influenced any other juror, therefore, no error is shown. See Scott v. State, 352 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Cr.App.1962). The record in this case does not contain a transcript of the proceedings of the trial, but merely contains a transcript o......
-
Myers v. State
...2d 562, Sec. 587; Holland v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 582, 298 S.W. 898; Stone v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 319, 31 S.W.2d 822; Scott v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 568, 352 S.W.2d 726. For the reason pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause Opinion approved by the Court. ...