Derrick v. State
| Decision Date | 23 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | (No. 4138.) |
| Citation | 187 S.W. 759 |
| Parties | DERRICK v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Kaufman County Court; James A. Cooley, Judge.
Chester Derrick was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Cosnahan & Ashworth, of Kaufman, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
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.
There was no error in overruling the motion for a continuance. As to what it was stated was expected to be proven by two of the witnesses, the state admitted such testimony to be true, and it was so stated to the jury. As to the third witness named in the application, he is shown to be a fugitive from justice.
When the motion for a new trial was heard, one of the jurors testified that he and two others first voted for an acquittal; that he (Juror Lindsey) did not think the evidence sufficient to show the guilt of appellant; that the foreman of the jury, Mr. Liston, said to the jury "that he lived near the defendant, and that the negroes down there were accustomed to raising disturbances, and he thought defendant should be convicted, and that would break it up." It seems that none of the other jurors were called, and this was all the testimony heard. The matter is hardly presented in a way, as the bill was not filed until after term time, we would be authorized to reverse the case upon this alone; but, inasmuch as we think there is another ground that will necessitate a reversal of the judgment, we call attention to this matter. It was improper to bring such matters before the jury, when there was no evidence in the case upon which to base such remarks.
The state made its case by one witness alone. The defendant denied making the sale, and other witnesses testified to facts rendering it highly improbable that appellant did make the sale to the prosecuting witness. His reputation as a peaceable, law-abiding citizen was testified to by witnesses. Counsel for the defendant in their argument attacked the credibility of the state's witness, insisting "that the witness had been broken down and the jury could give no credence to his testimony," etc. In reply to this the county attorney said:
"Sam Livingston [the prosecuting witness] on the night he was arrested told the officers that he bought whisky from appellant, and this was his first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May v. State, 24017.
...deliberate upon a case, have received other testimony; * * *." See Brown v. State, 134 Tex. Cr.R. 275, 115 S.W.2d 646; Derrick v. State, 80 Tex.Cr.R. 10, 187 S.W. 759; Howell v. State, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 563, 252 S. W. 539; Johnson v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 619, 26 S.W.2d 262; Stallworth v. State, ......
-
Scitern v. State
...improper, and that, if the language be calculated to injure, we would not speculate as to the amount of the injury. Derrick v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 10, 187 S. W. 759; Marshall v. State, 76 Tex. Cr. R. 386, 175 S. W. 154; Sarli v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 161, 189 S. W. 149; Kemper v. State, 6......
-
Price v. State
...judgment of conviction to stand. See art. 753, subd. 7, C.C.P.; also Hudson v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 297, 144 S.W.2d 893; Derrick v. State, 80 Tex.Cr.R. 10, 187 S.W. 759; Tutt v. State, 49 Tex.Cr.R. 202, 91 S.W. 584. See also McDougal v. State, 81 Tex.Cr.R. 179, 194 S.W. 944, L.R. A.1917E, 9......
-
Brooks v. State, 13722.
...The case is very similar on its facts to those found in Pendelton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 26 S.W.(2d) 240. See, also, Derrick v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 10, 187 S. W. 759; Davis v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 28 S.W.(2d) 168; Rosborough v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 393, 248 S. W. 372, and cases therei......