Goble v. State

• Decision Date: 13 February 1901
• Parties: GOBLE v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 968

60 S.W. 968

GOBLE v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

February 13, 1901.

Appeal from Erath county court; L. N. Frank, Judge.

John Goble was convicted for violating the local option law, and he appeals. Reversed.

Daniel & Keith, for appellant. D. E. Simmons, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROOKS, J.

Appellant was convicted for violating the local option law, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25 and 20 days' confinement in the county jail.

Bill of exceptions No. 1 shows: "That while the jury was being impaneled to try this cause, and while the jurors were being examined as to their qualifications to try this cause, counsel for defendant propounded to the following named jurors, each, the following questions, to wit, McCall, Key, Boynton, Barham, and Allen: (1) `Have you formed any opinion as to whether defendant has revenue license to sell intoxicating liquors in Bluffdale, in this county?' To which each of the jurors answered, `Yes.' (2) `Was that opinion formed from having heard the testimony of the witnesses in another case against defendant while he was being tried on a similar charge to that he is now being tried on?' And each of the said jurors answered, `Yes.' (3) `If you should be taken as a juror to try defendant, would you go into the jury box with that belief?' And each of the jurors answered, `Yes.' (4) `Would it require any evidence to be introduced to cause you to believe that defendant had a revenue license to sell intoxicating liquor at Bluffdale, and that revenue license was dated about December 1, 1899?' And each of said jurors answered, `No.' (5) `You would go into the jury box with a fixed opinion and belief that defendant had such revenue license?' Each of said jurors answered, `Yes.' (6) `You heard the testimony of witnesses in another case against defendant, as to whether he was engaged in the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors in Bluffdale, did you not?' And each of said jurors answered, `Yes.' (7) `From having heard the testimony of witnesses, have you formed an opinion as to whether defendant was engaged in the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor in Bluffdale in December, 1899, and extending in point of time into the year of 1900?' Each of said jurors answered, `Yes.' (8) `Would it require any evidence to cause you to believe that defendant was engaged in the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor at Bluffdale in December, 1899, and extending over into the year 1900?' Each of said jurors answered, `No.' (9) `You would believe these facts if no witness should testify to them, would you not?' Each of said jurors answered, `Yes.'" That defendant challenged each of said jurors for cause, because they had fixed opinions that defendant was guilty, and also that no proof was necessary as to the main features of the case, having heard the witnesses testify in another case against defendant involving the same evidence and charge. The court overruled the objections, and after exhausting his peremptory challenges he was compelled to accept three of said objectionable jurors, to wit, Allen, Boynton, and Barham, and they sat as jurors in this case. The court appends this explanation to the bill: "That, after defendant asked the above questions, jurors were asked by state if such opinion would in any way influence their action in finding a verdict, and they answered, `No,' and that they would not regard any of the facts above, and only such as might be proven." We think the court erred in forcing these jurors upon appellant. Where a juror answers that he has formed an opinion from evidence of witnesses in a companion case, the transaction being the same, the examination should cease, and the juror, being incompetent, should be discharged. Shannon v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 5, 28 S. W. 540; Obenchain v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 490, 34 S. W. 278. See, also, Shaw v. State, 27 Tex. 750; Sessions v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 59, 38 S. W. 605....