Cameron v. State
| Citation | 25 S.W. 288 |
| Parties | CAMERON v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1894 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from district court, Haskell county; C. P. Woodruff, Judge.
Ed. Cameron was convicted of a crime, and appeals. Affirmed.
For prior report, see 22 S. W. 682.
J. H. Glasgow and Ed. J. Hamner, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This cause was before this court at the Austin term, 1893, at which time it was reversed and remanded because the court struck out appellant's plea that he had contracted with authorized parties to turn state's evidence in certain prosecutions then pending, and was ready to carry out his agreement. Cameron v. State, (Tex. Cr. App.) 22 S. W. 682. This case was duly called for trial at the September term, and appellant again interposed his plea, and the state joined issue thereon; and the same was heard by the district judge, who held the evidence was insufficient to support said plea. Appellant then insisted upon presenting the same plea to the jury, and offering the same testimony held insufficient by the court. The court excluded said plea, and the appellant excepted, and appellant was duly convicted, and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary. Appellant contends that the court had no right to pass upon the plea and evidence to sustain it. In the former appeal we examined this question, and reached the conclusion, there announced, that a plea of the character here interposed is peculiarly within the province of the judge to decide, because the contract, when carried out in good faith, is the ground of obtaining a pardon after conviction, on the recommendation of the judge; and we here reach the same result by dismissing the prosecution, entering of record the reasons therefor, and thereby avoid useless trouble and expense to the state, witnesses, and jurors. The court did not err in refusing to submit the plea to a jury, especially where he had passed upon and decided it.
2. As to the insufficiency of the evidence to support the plea, we have given the evidence correctly brought before us by bill of exception a careful examination, and find that the court has correctly held that the evidence fails to sustain the plea. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex Parte Muncy
...upon which said opinion rested for its basis, and settled the matter beyond cavil. The following excerpt from the Camron Case, reported in 25 S. W. 288, shows that Justice Simkins did not admit that the courts of Texas had the inherent right, under the Constitution and statutes, to grant im......