Augustine v. State
| Decision Date | 21 October 1893 |
| Citation | 23 S.W. 689 |
| Parties | AUGUSTINE v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Gonzales county; B. R. Abernathy, Special Judge.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Dave Augustine, who is in custody under a warrant issued on an indictment charging him with murder. From a judgment refusing to admit him to bail, he appeals. Reversed.
Kleberg & Crain and Glass & Burgess, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant, having been denied bail, prosecutes his appeal. The questions presented are legal, arising upon an agreed statement of facts, substantially as follows, to wit: On the 21st of December, 1876, the grand jury of De Witt county preferred an indictment against appellant and others, charging them with the murder of Phillip Brassell. That on the 29th of the same month the cause was, on change of venue, transferred to Bexar county. That on account of sickness, rendering it dangerous to longer confine appellant, he was admitted to bail in the sum of $10,000, and this occurred in December, 1882. The following January the state, after exhausting diligence, could not secure the attendance of the witnesses for the prosecution, and, being unable to longer continue the cause, dismissed it, as to the relator. On the 31st day of December, 1891, the grand jury of De Witt county reindicted the relator for the same murder, and the venue was changed to Gonzales county, where it was again continued by the state on June 25, 1893. It was admitted, and shown to be true, that the offense charged in the indictment found in 1876 was identical with that set forth in the bill preferred in 1891.
We deem it necessary to discuss only one of the legal questions presented for decision, to wit, when a person charged with a capital offense has once been admitted to bail after indictment found, he shall not be subject to be again placed in custody for the same offense, except on surrender by his sureties, whether the bail be granted on the facts, or on account of ill health. In other words, when bail is once granted after indictment found, it is beyond the power of the state to rearrest for that offense; the right to bail being res adjudicata. This proposition is fully sustained by the authorities, were it necessary to look beyond our own statutes. Wells, Res Adj. § 421; Church, Hab. Corp. 386; Jilz's Case, 64 Mo. 205. Looking to our own legislation, we find that article 187, Code Crim. Proc., provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Salfen
...29 terminated in the court reducing Williams' bail from $150,000 to $15,000. The setting of bail was res judicata. Augustine v. State, 33 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 23 S.W. 689 (1893); Jenkins v. State, 45 Tex.Cr.R. 253, 76 S.W. 464 (1903); Korn v. State, 400 S.W.2d 564 (Tex.Cr.App.1966). Williams made h......
-
Young v. Russell
...in order to permit the prosecution to introduce evidence in rebuttal of that offered by the applicant.' Citing Ex parte Augustine, 33 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 23 S.W. 689, 47 Am.St.Rep. 17. To the same effect see 8 C.J.S. Bail Sec. 47, p. 95, citing State ex rel. Starritt v. Newman, supra, in Believing......
-
Korn v. State, 39557
...the state, and even to the accused, unless he should seek to reduce the amount of bail granted, by appeal or otherwise.' Augustine v. State, 33 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 23 S.W. 689; Jenkins v. State, 45 Tex.Cr. R. 253, 76 S.W. This part of the judgment is accordingly reversed and bail again fixed in th......
-
Villasana v. State, 40191
...become res judicata upon his having been released on bond set by a magistrate prior to the return of the indictment. In Augustine v. State, 33 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 23 S.W. 689, and Jenkins v. State, 45 Tex.Cr.R. 253, 76 S.W. 464, cited by appellant, the order granting bail in a capital case held to......