Gibbs v. State, 28064

Decision Date23 May 1956
Docket NumberNo. 28064,28064
Citation291 S.W.2d 320,163 Tex.Crim. 370
PartiesDonnie GIBBS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Runge, Hardeman, Smith & Foy, by William I. Marschall, Jr. and Earl W. Smith, San Angelo, Lee & Lee, Mason, for appellant.

Jack B. Miller, Dist. Atty., San Saba, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

Our original opinion is withdrawn. In view of our present disposition of this case, a recitation of the facts will not be necessary.

There were several question of jury misconduct raised. We shall discuss only two.

The jury deliberated approximately three hours. They determined the appellant's guilt in fifteen minutes, and the remainder of the time was consumed in setting the punishment. The juror Wimberley testified at the hearing on the motion for new trial that at first four of the jurors, whom she named, were for a suspended sentence. The juror Allen testified that she first voted for a suspended sentence and that, following this, some of the other jurors who were voting for a term in the penitentiary stated that some of the jurors in Mason County (where this case had been tried to a hung jury) had wanted to give the appellant forty years. She testified that after this remark was made she and the other jurors changed their votes from a suspended sentence to a term in the penitentiary. The State sought to rebut this testimony by calling three jurors and by introducing the affidavits of others. The three who testified and the affidavits introduced did not deny that the statement about the Mason County jurors had been made; they merely stated that they did not remember having heard it mentioned. The affidavits of the two additional jurors named as having first voted for a suspended sentence did not deny that they had changed their vote. Recently, in Spriggs v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 188, 268 S.W.2d 191, 192, we said:

'We cannot agree that the testimony of seven of the jurors to the effect that they did not hear or make the statement was sufficient to authorize the trial judge to conclude that the remark was not made.'

The jurors Rusche and Allen also testified that there was some discussion to the effect 'that even if the defendant were given a five year sentence, that he might be able to get into the Army and might not have to serve it in the penitentiary.'

The remaining jurors who testified were not questioned about whether or not there had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Pinson v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 17, 1975
    ...asserts that a new trial is required because other evidence was received by the jury during deliberations, citing Gibbs v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 370, 291 S.W.2d 320, and Baltazar v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 373 S.W.2d 753. In each of those cases the defendant offered evidence in support of his mo......
  • Hartman v. State, 48255
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 27, 1974
    ...make the statement was sufficient to authorize the trial judge to conclude that the remark was not made.' See also, Gibbs v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 370, 291 S.W.2d 320 (1956). Under the undisputed record which we review, it is clear that the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion ......
  • Alexander v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • July 16, 1980
    ...v. State, 390 S.W.2d 752, 753 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); Spriggs v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 188, 268 S.W.2d 191, 192 (1954); Gibbs v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 370, 291 S.W.2d 320 (1956); McDaniel v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 402, 308 S.W.2d 24, 26 Article 40.03(7) provides that a new trial shall be granted "(w......
  • Wiley v. State, 31303
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 17, 1960
    ...to the effect that they did not remember such statement having been made is not sufficient rebuttal that such occurred. Gibbs v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 370, 291 S.W.2d 320. Upon another trial, the testimony of the different witnesses in the presence of the jury as to the reports they made to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT