Addison v. State
Decision Date | 16 April 1919 |
Docket Number | (No. 5363.) |
Citation | 211 S.W. 225 |
Parties | ADDISON v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Hill County Court; R. T. Burns, Judge.
Jake Addison was convicted of divulging the proceedings of a grand jury, and appeals. Reversed, and cause remanded for new trial.
Dupree & Crenshaw, of Hillsboro, for appellant.
E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the county court of Hill county for the violation of article 316, P. C., which forbids divulging the proceedings of any grand jury, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100.
Appellant was a witness before the grand jury, and was interrogated as to certain gaming. It was charged that he afterwards divulged to Ward Russell the facts which he had learned by reason of his being such witness. On the trial the state introduced the foreman of the grand jury, one Wilson, to show that the appellant was such witness before said body, and also what he testified when there. Such testimony was introduced under the evident hypothesis that, before the state could make out its case against appellant for divulging the proceedings of the grand jury, it would have to first show what those proceedings were.
Appellant by proper bill of exceptions here complains that the evidence of said Wilson should not have been received, because the truth or falsity of the evidence given by the appellant before the grand jury was not under investigation, nor was the truth of any matter inquired about before the grand jury an issue in said case, and that such testimony of said foreman of the grand jury was in violation of the oath he had taken and contrary to public policy.
The oath taken by every grand jury is as follows:
Article 316 of the Penal Code is as follows:
"Any grand juror, or any person who shall appear before any grand jury in this state, and who, after being sworn according to law as a witness before said grand jury, shall afterwards divulge, either by word or sign, any matter about which said witness may have been interrogated, or any proceeding or fact said witness may have learned by reason of being said witness, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be fined in any sum not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, and may be in addition thereto imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding six months; provided, this act shall not apply to persons required to testify to any of the aforesaid matters before a judicial tribunal."
It is provided by article 25 of our Code of Criminal Procedure that the provisions of this Code shall be liberally construed so as to attain the objects intended by the Legislature; that is, the prevention, suppression, and punishment of crime.
Prior to the enactment of article 316, supra, one could not be punished for divulging the secrets of a grand jury, his oath being well within the provisions of article...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stern v. State ex rel. Ansel
...opinion adopted); Gutgesell v. State, 43 S.W. 1016 (Tex.Crim.App.1898), overruled on other grounds by Addisson v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. 181, 211 S.W. 225 (1919) ("... it would appear to be the declared policy of our law to make secret all of the proceedings before the grand jury...."); see al......
-
Goodman v. United States
...to the foreman. 2 See Gutgesell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 43 S.W. 1016; Misso v. State, 61 Tex. Cr.R. 241, 135 S.W. 1173; Addison v. State, 85 Tex.Cr.R. 181, 211 S.W. 225; Ex parte Welborn, 237 Mo. 297, 309, 141 S.W. 3 See State v. Kemp, 124 Conn. 639, 1 A.2d 761. 4 The districts named by coun......
-
Huntress v. State
...as herein stated: Wisdom v. State, 42 Tex.Cr.R. 579, 61 S.W. 926, 927; Pozil v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 244, 283 S.W. 846; Addison v. State, 85 Tex. Cr.R. 181, 211 S.W. 225. In support of this contention generally we cite: 21 Tex. Jur. p. 126, par. 42; article 3896, R.S. 1925; articles 23 and ......
-
5 Byrd Enterprises, Inc., In re
...v. State, 41 Tex.Crim. 424, 55 S.W. 326, 329 (1900) (grand jury testimony may be used to refresh memory of witness); Addison v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. 181, 211 S.W. 225 (1919) (grand jury testimony may be disclosed to show circumstances in which grand jury secrets became known); Rothschild v. ......