Arnold v. State

• Decision Date: 26 May 1897
• Docket Number: No. 828.,828.
• Citation: 40 S.W. 734
• Parties: ARNOLD v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

40 S.W. 734

ARNOLD v. STATE.

No. 828.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 26, 1897.

Appeal from Brown county court; Charles Rogan, Judge.

L. T. Arnold was convicted of violating the local option law, and appeals. Affirmed.

Mann Trice, for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25 and 20 days' imprisonment in the county jail; hence this appeal.

He moved to "quash and set aside the panel of jurors summoned for the week of court during which this trial took place." This motion was sustained. This action of the court seems to have been based upon the fact that the jurors had been summoned by the sheriff without taking the oath required by the statute in summoning jurors other than those drawn by the jury commissioners. Some of said jurors had been drawn by the jury commissioners for the first week of the term (the trial occurring in the third week), and had been summoned (as stated above) by the sheriff without taking the oath required by the statute. Whether or not this action of the court in sustaining the motion to quash and set aside the panel of jurors was correct, is not presented for review. When this motion to set aside the panel was sustained, these jurors left the courthouse, and the sheriff was sworn as required by law, and summoned the required number of jurors to attend upon the court. Among the number so summoned by him were some of those who had been summoned by the sheriff as jurors on the panel quashed by the court. The array of jurors thus summoned was challenged by the defendant. The authority of the sheriff to summon the jurors in this character of case is expressly provided by statute. See Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 695, and Anderson v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 96, 29 S. W. 384. When the challenge to the array is made under the circumstances set out, it can only be done by stating under oath that the officer summoning the jury has acted corruptly, and has willfully summoned persons upon the jury known to be prejudiced against the defendant, and with the view of causing him to be convicted. See Code Cr. Proc. 1895, arts. 661, 663. And such challenge can only be made when the jurors are those who have not been selected by the jury commissioners. Id. art. 662. There was no error in this ruling of the court.

It is shown by the third bill of exceptions that appellant proposed to ask the jurors in this case if they had formed a conclusion as to defendant's guilt in another local option case, or if they had become prejudiced against him on account of said former case, or if they believed that he was an immoral man, or if they believed that he had been selling beer at Temperance Hall. The court refused to permit appellant to ask these questions. It may be stated in this connection that one or more of the jurors who were summoned had tried defendant in another case for violating the local option law. It is stated by the court, by way of explanation to the bill, that the case then on trial charged the sale of intoxicating liquors to Joe Hall on June 6, 1895, when the case on which he had been previously tried was for selling to J. A. Strickland on March 28, 1895. The jurors stated that they had no bias in favor of, or prejudice against, the accused, and...