Carter v. State, 21024.
Citation | 144 S.W.2d 582 |
Decision Date | 29 May 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 21024.,21024. |
Parties | CARTER v. STATE. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2, Harris County; Langston G. King, Judge.
John T. Carter was convicted of perjury, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Kahn & Branch, John N. Snell, Sr., and Kenneth H. Aynesworth, Jr., all of Houston, for appellant.
Dan W. Jackson, Cr. Dist. Atty., and Allie L. Peyton, Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., both of Houston, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is perjury. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of three years.
The record shows that appellant was a member of the jury before whom Vincent Vallone was tried in the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Harris County, Texas, for the murder of J. I. Thomas. The jury found Vallone guilty of murder with malice and assessed his punishment at confinement in the state penitentiary for life. Vallone, in due time, filed a motion for a new trial and subsequently an amended motion for a new trial in which he set up, among other grounds, that some one or more of the jurors, while deliberating on their verdict, stated that the defendant, Vallone, had been accused of the murder of one Navarro; that no evidence thereof had been introduced on the trial. Appellant made an affidavit in which he stated the facts above set forth to substantiate the averments in the motion for a new trial. By written pleading, the State denied the averments in the motion, contested the same and supported its pleading by the affidavits of the other eleven members of said jury.
The perjury indictment in this case is based upon the alleged false affidavit of the appellant Carter.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the indictment upon the following grounds:
Omitting the formal parts, the indictment reads as follows:
The first two grounds urged by appellant against the sufficiency of the indictment are general, and in our opinion, are covered by the more specific objections Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Consequently, we shall first discuss the third objection and the remainder in their numerical order.
Appellant claims that there is no allegation in the indictment to the effect that there was any issue made on the motion for new trial in the case of Vincent Vallone v. State of Texas, Tex.Cr.App., 147 S.W.2d 227. Looking to the indictment, we note that Vincent Vallone, in his amended motion for a new trial, set up matters relating to the misconduct of the jury which, if true, might have entitled him to a new trial, and to this motion, Vincent Vallone attached the affidavit of the appellant substantiating the averments therein. The motion, together with the affidavit of the appellant supporting the averments therein, was required by law to entitle him to a hearing thereof. Consequently, an issue was raised as against the validity of the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court based thereon. It was charged in the indictment that the appellant, John T. Carter, under the sanction of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gauthier v. State
...information he seeks.2 See also 2 Branch's Ann.P.C., 2d ed. 327, Sec. 868.1, the second suggested charge taken from Carter v. State, 144 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.Cr.App.1940), which includes the charge requested in this case.3 Almost all witness are admonished to answer the question propounded to th......
-
Soliz v. State
...and in some other county connected, in a specified manner, to the offense). 16. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 13.03. 17. 140 Tex.Crim. 324, 144 S.W.2d 582 (1940). 18. Id. at 332, 144 S.W.2d at 586. 19. Id. 20. 980 S.W.2d 237 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1998, pet. ref'd) 21. Id. 22. 773 F.2d 477 (2nd Cir......
- Fitts v. State, No. 05-08-00584-CR (Tex. App. 6/10/2010)
-
Brinkley v. State
...of State v. Dunn, 80 A.L.R. p. 1443, with a long list of Texas cases on page 1445, as well as the late case of Carter v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 324, 144 S.W.2d 582, and cases there We are not impressed with the contention of the invalidity of the indictment relative to the use of the phrase '......