Green v. State, 24597
| Decision Date | 25 January 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 24597,24597 |
| Citation | 154 Tex.Crim. 197,226 S.W.2d 454 |
| Parties | GREEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Burks & McNeil, Lubbock, for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was charged by complaint and information with the sale of whiskey in a dry area, there being five counts, each charging a separate sale. The court submitted Counts 1, 2 and 5 to the jury and appellant was convicted on each count and his punishment was assessed by the jury at a fine of $100 and four months in jail on each count. Judgment was entered combining such fines and imprisonment, so as to adjudge that appellant be fined $300 and imprisoned in jail for twelve months.
The facts show that appellant sold whiskey to the officers named in the complaint and information in a dry area, as charged in such counts. No evidence was offered in behalf of appellant.
The trial judge in connection with his charge to the jury in writing admonished the jury against a quotient verdict in this language:
'If you should find the defendant guilty, you are instructed that you should not attempt to arrive at the punishment to be assessed by your verdict by a ballot as to the number of months or the amount of fine, or both each juror is in favor of assessing and then deviding the total of same by the number six, the number of jurors in this case.'
Appellant excepted to such charge because of the use of the term 'number of months' on the ground that such is on the weight of the evidence, calculated to lead the jury to believe that the imprisonment, if any, should be for a term of 'months.' Appellant also requested a charge cautioning the jury against arriving at the punishment to be assessed by lot or chance or by any other manner except by a fair consideration of the evidence, in lieu of the admonition quoted.
The trial court should have responded when the matter was thus called to his attention by eliminating the expression 'term of months.' The punishment provided for the offense charged has no minimum jail term and therefore is not necessarily to be measured in terms of months.
The effect of such instruction was to indicate to the jury that the trial judge was inclined to the view that the punishment on each charge should be in 'months.' There being three charges, and the jury assessing the punishment on each in terms of months, we are unable to say that no injury to appellant is shown.
Counsel for the state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huckert v. State
...of said Article and constituted reversible error. In Newton v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 500, 202 S.W.2d 921, and in Green v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 197, 226 S.W.2d 454, we said that a violation of Art. 707, C.C.P., ordinarily will result in a reversal. And in Hill v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 105, 217......
-
Springfield v. State
...of days, or a period of months, and the court's reference to 'years' was clearly improper for the reasons stated in Green v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 197, 226 S.W.2d 454. See also Barrera v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 49, 246 S.W.2d 480. The State was allowed to prove that appellant had made four sep......
-
Barrera v. State, 25694
...question squarely to this court. It appears to be the same error and the same objection which this court passed upon in Green v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 226 S.W.2d 454, 455. It was there said: 'The trial court should have responded when the matter was thus called to his attention by eliminating......
- Williams v. State, 24619