Ex parte Perez
| Decision Date | 08 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 41277,41277 |
| Citation | 428 S.W.2d 323 |
| Parties | Ex parte Raul PEREZ, |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Murray J. Howze, Monahans, for petitioner.
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 wife.
The Constitution of this State provides that all prisoners are entitled to bail except in capital cases, when the 'proof is evident.' Art. 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 Paul, Tex.Cr.App., 420 S.W.2d 956; See also Ex parte Collins, 168 Tex.Ct.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. See also 8 Tex.Juris.2d, Bail and Recognizance, Sec. 18, p. 137.
In Ex parte Thrash, supra, this Court said:
In examining the record before us, we find a complete lack of any evidence surrounding the alleged offense of the murder of appellant's wife. The State offered only the testimony of the Sheriff of Reeves County who expressed the opinion that appellant should not be released on bond for his own protection and for the protection of other people. He stated that there had been 'persistent rumors' that some people intended to kill the appellant if he got out, and 'substantial information' that the appellant had threatened to kill some people if he were released. Such testimony does not discharged the State's burden of proof.
The indictment in question is attached to the record, but this likewise does not discharge the State's burden. 'An indictment furnishes no proof that the accused is guilty of a capital crime, much less that he is guilty of a capital crime in which the proof is evident.' 8 Tex.Juris.2d, Bail and Recognizance, Sec. 21, p. 140, 141.
There was some evidence in the record to the effect that appellant had been previously charged with another murder offense occurring some six months earlier...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beck v. State
...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 Penal Code see Ex parte Derese, 540 S.W.2d 332 The bu......
-
Taglianetti v. Fontaine
...Dilley, 174 Iowa 243, 156 N.W. 513; Day v. Caudill, Ky., 300 S.W.2d 45; Application of Wheeler, 81 Nev. 495, 406 P.2d 713; Ex parte Perez, Tex.Cr.App., 428 S.W.2d 323. It would unduly lengthen this opinion if we were to marshall and cite all the authorities supporting the respective schools......
-
Ex parte Contella
...penalty.' Ex parte Paul, 420 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). Accord, Ex parte Short, 462 S.W.2d 281 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Ex parte Perez, 428 S.W.2d 323 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). In the case of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (U.S. June 29, 1972), the United States Suprem......
-
Ex parte Sierra
...of proof is on the State to establish that the proof is evident. E.g., Ex parte Forbes, Tex.Cr.App., 474 S.W.2d 690; Ex parte Perez, Tex.Cr.App., 428 S.W.2d 323; Ex parte Thrash, Tex.Cr.App., 320 S.W.2d 357. The State must include evidence that the jury would not only convict, but would ret......