Guerrera v. State, 20029.
| Decision Date | 25 January 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 20029.,20029. |
| Citation | 125 S.W.2d 595 |
| Parties | GUERRERA v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Goliad County; R. D. Wright, Judge.
Valentine Guerrera was convicted of murder and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Wade & Wade, of Beeville, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for 99 years.
It appears from bill of exception No. 1a that the court charged the jury on Sunday, March 6, 1938, at 1:50 p. m. Charging the jury is strictly a judicial act. Moss v. State, 131 Tenn. 94, 173 S.W. 859, Ann.Cas.1916B, 1. Courts have no right to pronounce a judgment, or do any other act strictly judicial, on Sunday, in the absence of a permissive statute. Bloss v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 216, 75 S.W.2d 694; Shearman v. State, 1 Tex.App. 215, 28 Am.Rep. 402. We have in this state no statute permitting the jury to be charged on Sunday. In Moss v. State, supra, the court said [page 863]: "Charging the jury is a high judicial function, and it cannot be lawfully exercised on Sunday." We are constrained to hold that reversible error is presented.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
On State's Motion for Rehearing.
The state, in its motion for a rehearing, attempts to justify the action of the trial court in charging the jury on Sunday by reason of the exigencies of the occasion, in that the term of court expired on that day and a term of court began in another county in the same Judicial District on the following day. We do not know of any law, nor is our attention directed to any, which would authorize such judicial act to be performed on Sunday under any circumstances.
It would have been an easy matter for the court to have extended the term until the business in which he was engaged was disposed of. The statute specifically provides for an extension of the term of court. See Art. 1923, R.C.S. of Texas.
The state also requests us to express an opinion as to the sufficiency of the testimony to establish the corpus delicti, and also as to the admissibility of the alleged statements made by appellant to the officers.
We do not deem it necessary to do so as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowan & Hope v. Valadez
...proposition that had the main charge of the court been delivered upon Sunday, a reversible error would be presented. Guerrera v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 411, 125 S.W.2d 595; 39 Tex.Jur. 877, Sundays and Holidays, § 15. The record here discloses, however, that the charge of the court was delive......
-
Harris v. State
...in delivering on a Sunday the charge to the jury on punishment was an error requiring reversal. He relies upon Guerrera v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 411, 125 S.W.2d 595 (1939), which cites Moss v. State, 131 Tenn. 94, 173 S.W. 859 for the rule that a court may not perform a judicial act on Sunda......
-
New Castle v. Casacchia
... ... L. 1135, 75 PS § ... 741, illustrates our point most clearly. Pennsylvania State ... policemen in uniform are thereby authorized to arrest all ... violators of the act on view on ... Sunday. The sentence was held to be void. In Guerrera v ... The State, 141 Texas C. Rep. 278, 125 S.W.2d 595, a ... judge who had to preside in ... ...
-
Price v. State, 25955
...statute. We have no such statute in Texas, and a judgment rendered on Sunday is void. See Shearman v. State, supra; Guerrera v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 411, 125 S.W.2d 595; Ball v. United States, The same rule seems to apply in civil proceedings. See Skeen v. Foster, Tex.Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 10......