Doulton v. State
| Decision Date | 25 March 1903 |
| Citation | 73 S.W. 395 |
| Parties | DOULTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Delta County; H. C. Connor, Judge.
H. J. Doulton was convicted of false swearing, and appeals. Reversed.
L. L. Wood, Ed. H. Bennett, and Holmes & Sharp, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of false swearing, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years.
Appellant made a motion to quash the indictment on various grounds. We have examined the indictment, and, in our opinion, the grounds are not well taken. The explanatory averments in the latter portion of the indictment sufficiently show the meaning of the instrument set out to which the alleged false oath was made. However, the judgment must be reversed because of the misconduct of the jury. The affidavits show that the failure of defendant to testify was discussed in their retirement, and before they had agreed on a verdict. It is true the jurors all swear that the discussion did not influence them, but the question came up in a way that suggested they considered his failure to testify as a matter of importance. A new trial should have been granted on this account. Buessing v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 63 S. W. 318; Tate v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 42 S. W. 595; Wilson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 46 S. W. 251; Thorpe v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 50 S. W. 383.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jester
...prejudicial misconduct of a nature necessitating a new trial. (C. S., sec. 9017; State v. Burton, 65 Kan. 704, 70 P. 640; Doulton v. State (Tex.), 73 S.W. 395; State Rambo, 69 Kan. 777, 77 P. 563; Tutt v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 202, 91 S.W. 584; State v. Duncan, 70 Kan. 883, 78 P. 427; White v.......
-
Fults v. State
...other that his counsel was too sharp to put him on the jury, was clearly calculated to injure the rights of appellant. Doulton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 73 S. W. 395; Cowan v. State, 93 S. W. 553, 16 Tex. Ct. Rep. 60; Thorpe v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 50 S. W. 383; Wilson v. State (Tex. Cr. Ap......
-
Franks v. State
...did not influence them. Rogers v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 55 S. W. 817; Buissing v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 85, 63 S. W. 318; Doulton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 73 S. W. 395; Fine v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 292, 77 S. W. 806. The facts in this case clearly bring within the rule last stated, for the......
- Salter v. State