Ex parte Paul
| Decision Date | 29 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40941,40941 |
| Citation | 420 S.W.2d 956 |
| Parties | Ex parte Charles E. PAUL. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ben D. Sudderth, Comanche, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from an order in a habeas corpus proceeding refusing appellant bail after indictment for murder with malice of his mother-in-law.
A previous appeal from a denial of bail before indictment was dismissed when such appeal was rendered moot by the return of the indictment. See Ex parte Paul, 419 S.W.2d 867 (October 25, 1967).
At the habeas corpus hearing it was stipulated by the defense and the State that in reaching a decision the court would consider the evidence adduced at the previous habeas corpus proceeding held on September 16, 1967.
The Constitution of this State provides that all prisoners are entitled to bail except in capital cases, when the 'proof is evident.' Article I, Section 11.
The term 'proof is evident' means the accused, with cool and deliberate mind and formed design, maliciously killed the deceased, and that upon a hearing of the facts before the court a dispassionate jury would, upon such evidence, not only convict but would assess the death penalty. Ex parte Collins, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 500, 330 S.W.2d 194; Ex parte Thrash, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 409, 320 S.W.2d 357; Ex parte Washburn, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 651, 280 S.W.2d 257; Ex parte Shults, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 484, 77 S.W.2d 877.
In Ex parte Thrash, shpra, this Court said:
In performing this duty it has long been the policy of this Court in proceedings of this nature to refrain from stating the facts at length and of expressing a conclusion as to the sufficiency of the evidence to show the defendant's guilt. The purpose of such policy is that the trial should proceed without pre-judgment by this Court. This policy was departed from in Ex parte Krueger, Tex.Cr.App., 391 S.W.2d 737, but is here reaffirmed.
At the outset appellant's counsel readily concedes that the evidence is sufficient to show that an offense was committed and that appellant is the guilty party, but contends that the evidence does not indicate that appellant would probably be punished capitally if the law is administered.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Waddell
...evidence, in this or any other case, sufficient to establish that the 'proof is evident' as that term is defined in Ex parte Paul, Supra, (420 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Cr.App.)). Therefore, there is no case in which bail may be denied under the provisions of Art. 1, Section 11 of the Texas Constitut......
-
Fountaine v. Mullen
...supports the general principle that the hearing judge must determine the sentence that is likely to be imposed. E.g., Ex parte Paul, 420 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). The petitioners contend that in this case they are not likely to be sentenced to life if convicted and that, for this reason......
-
Montalvo v. The State Of Tex.
...we offer no view on the weight of any evidence discussed herein as it may relate to any future proceedings. See Ex parte Paul, 420 S.W.2d 956, 957 (Tex.Crim. App. 1967) (noting policy in habeas corpus appeals relating to bail "to refrain from stating the facts at length and of expressing a ......
-
Beck v. State
...by the death penalty if the law is administered. Ex parte Coward, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 593, 170 S.W.2d 754 (Tex.Cr.App.1943); Ex parte Paul, 420 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Ex parte Perez, 428 S.W.2d 323 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Ex parte Sierra, 514 S.W.2d 760 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Under the present Pena......