Dodson v. State
| Decision Date | 15 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6131.) |
| Citation | 232 S.W. 836 |
| Parties | DODSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; Edgar Scurry, Judge.
Frank Dodson was convicted of keeping premises for gambling, and he appeals. Reversed.
Leslie Humphrey, Heyser, Hicks, Wilson & Williams and Bishop & Lantz, all of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
R. H. Hamilton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the violation of the law prohibiting the keeping of premises for the purpose of being used as a place to gamble with dice and cards; his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of four years.
A plea in abatement was interposed in which it was alleged that the appellant had been called before the grand jury and required to give testimony, by reason of which he was exempted from prosecution of the offense charged by virtue of the terms of article 574 of the Penal Code, which reads thus:
In support of his plea the appellant offered testimony to the effect that while he was in the gambling establishment with a number of others, a homicide took place, in which he was not a participant; that he, with others, was arrested and placed in jail, from whence he was brought, at the instance of the county attorney, before the justice of the peace, and there called upon to disclose what knowledge he had touching the homicide, and was also called upon and required to give testimony concerning the gambling establishment, and pursuant thereto did give testimony to the effect that the establishment about which he spent much of his time was a gambling house; that various gambling devices and games were conducted therein; that certain persons, whose names he gave, were concerned and engaged in the operation of the gambling house; that he had rented the building in which the gambling was conducted for the purpose of using it as a gambling house; that he had built the gambling tables that were used.
Appellant offered to prove that after testifying before the justice of the peace he was brought, while under arrest, before the grand jury, and informed that he was charged with unlawfully keeping a gambling house; that this was under investigation, and given warning that he was privileged to make the statement which could be used against him, but not in his favor; that he replied that he did not care to make such a statement; that he was then told that after being sworn that inquiry would be made of him about the homicide. He gave such testimony, but in the course of it, and after he had given all that he knew about it, inquiry was pressed with reference to his conduct in the gambling house and his connection therewith.
Article 574, supra, is a part of the gaming law. It reflects the judgment and declaration of the legislative branch of the government that in the suppression of the gambling vice it was deemed expedient to require participants to give evidence and to extend to them immunity. The option of calling one who has engaged in gambling to testify is with the prosecuting officers, but, having exercised the option and secured the testimony by the means provided by the statute, the law operates to make those complying with it immune. Interpreting the statute, the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Douglas v. State
...43 Tex. Cr. R. 432; Elliott v. State, 19 S. W. 249, 66 S. W. 782; Taylor v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 183, 95 S. W. 119; Dodson v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 541, 232 S. W. 836. The right of one to refrain from giving testimony, the nature of which is to reveal his criminal connection with an offens......
-
Blanks v. State
...opinion. This court has also written upon the same subject in Medlock v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 274, 1 S.W.(2d) 308; Dodson v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 541, 232 S. W. 836; Douglas v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 413, 269 S. W. 1041; Dunagan v. State, 102 Tex. Cr. R. 404, 278 S. W. 432; Lewis v. State......
-
Damaris v. State, 34883
...exempt from prosecution for violation of Sec. 4 of Art. 652a, V.A.P.C., under the terms of Section 7 of said statute. In Dodson v. State, 89 Tex.Cr.R. 541, 232 S.W. 836, in construing what is now Art. 639, P.C., a part of the gaming law, this Court 'It reflects the judgment and declaration ......
-
Stone v. State
...of the special charge in question was proper. We find nothing in Ex parte Miller, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 607, 240 S. W. 944, or Dodson v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 541, 232 S. W. 836, contrary to the conclusion announced by us. The Dodson Case arose under a gambling statute and involves the constructio......