Campbell v. State, 15547.
| Decision Date | 18 January 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 15547.,15547. |
| Parties | CAMPBELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; D. W. Bartlett, Judge.
Buck Campbell, alias Albert Campbell, was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Norton Fox and Eugene McNamara, both of Waco, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Conviction is for burglary; punishment being two years in the penitentiary.
No statement of facts is brought forward. By motion in arrest of judgment, sworn to by appellant, and also by amended motion for new trial, also sworn to by appellant, an attempt is made to challenge the jury which tried the case as having been drawn under the "jury wheel" law of McLennan county, which was held unconstitutional in Smith v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 49 S.W.(2d) 739, and Whatley v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 51 S.W.(2d) 1116. Both motions raise an issue of fact, to establish which it became necessary for the court to hear evidence. Especially would this be true where, as in the present case, the averments in the motions were denied under oath by the state. If any testimony was heard, it is not brought before us either by bill of exception or statement of facts. In such case we must presume that the trial court was correct in overruling the motion. Furthermore, no question in limine was raised regarding the jury, and we see no reason why the general rule would not be applicable, which is that it is too late after verdict to complain for the first time of errors committed in impaneling or organizing the jury. Branch's Ann. Tex. P. C. § 524, and cases cited thereunder, among them being Ellington v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 427, 140 S. W. 1101; Texas Jurisprudence, vol. 4, § 34; Cardena v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 436, 251 S. W. 225.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cockrell v. State
...91, 106 S.W. 347; Kinch v. State, 70 Tex.Cr.R. 419, 156 S.W. 649; Lowe v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 316, 226 S.W. 674; Campbell v. State, 122 Tex.Cr. R. 494, 56 S.W.2d 460; Cardena v. State, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 436, 251 S.W. 225; Ellington v. State, 63 Tex.Cr.R. 427, 140 S.W. On motion for rehearing app......
-
Clay v. State, s. 47603
...the oath required by Article 35.02, V.A.C.C.P. was not given. This ground presents no error and is overruled. See Campbell v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 494, 56 S.W.2d 460 (1933). In several grounds of error appellants complain of the admission over objection of the testimony of A. A. Arnold, Jam......
-
Singleton v. State
...motion to quash the panel was made prior to the trial, as is required by the holdings of this Court in such cases as Campbell v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 494, 56 S.W.2d 460; Jones v. State, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 433, 35 S.W. 975; and Caldwell v. State, 12 Tex.App. 302, and the cases therein Reliance is ......
-
Root v. State, 31479
...time after the jury had returned its verdict and came too late. Cockrell v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 218, 117 S.W.2d 1105; Campbell v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 494, 56 S.W.2d 460. The remaining claims of error have been considered and are The judgment is affirmed. DAVIDSON, Judge (concurring). Art.......