Henderson v. State, 28554
| Decision Date | 07 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 28554,28554 |
| Citation | 163 Tex.Crim. 573,295 S.W.2d 215 |
| Parties | H. L. HENDERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jerry Paquin, Denver City, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 60 days in jail and a fine of $100.
Officers Heath and Smith testified that they observed the appellant as he was driving upon the highway and noticed that his automobile 'went off the side of the road' and stirred up dust and that it 'wobbled' to either side of a straight line. They stated that when they brought his automobile to a halt they concluded from his actions and demeanor that he was intoxicated and placed him under arrest.
The appellant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted having drunk two beers earlier in the afternoon.
The jury resolved what disputed issue there may have been in the evidence against the appellant, and we find the evidence sufficient to support their verdict.
The sole question presented for review is the action of the trial court in overruling the appellant's motion for new trial based upon alleged jury misconduct.
The supporting affidavit recited that a statement was made during the deliberations that the appellant had been indicted for the instant offense and the case had been 'dismissed for some reason or other' and that drunk driving was happening all too frequently in Yoakum County and that if they (the jury) 'were going to stop it they had better start now by assessing a heavy punishment and not so much money.'
We must determine if the trial court erred in overruling a motion with such an affidavit attached thereto without hearing evidence thereon. In doing so, we are to assume that such allegations are true and that nothing further transpired during their deliberations that was injurious to the appellant.
We are at a loss to determine how the first statement could have been prejudicial. The appellant was then on trial upon an information signed by the county attorney. As a matter of law, neither an indictment nor an information is evidence of guilt. The fact that the grand jury of the county had returned an indictment against the appellant charging him with the same offense and that the same had been dismissed for 'some reason or another' would tend, we think, to counterbalance each other in the jury's mind.
We move on to the question of the discussion concerning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olson v. State
...enforcement. Villarreal v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 440 S.W.2d 74; Perbetsky v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 429 S.W.2d 471, and Henderson v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 573, 295 S.W.2d 215. While some of the argument probably should not have been made, there is nothing presented for review, because there was n......
-
Com. v. Frazier
...years earlier, and the reference to a prior trial, without disclosing the results thereof, was innocuous. Compare: Henderson v. State, 163 Tex.Cr. 573, 295 S.W.2d 215 (1956); 58 A.L.R.2d 556 § 10. Not every unwise or irrelevant remark made in the presence of the jury compels a new trial. Th......
-
Commonwealth v. Frazier
...and the reference to a prior trial, without disclosing the results thereof, was innocuous. Compare: Henderson v. State, 163 Tex.Cr. 573, 295 S.W.2d 215 (1956); [269 Pa.Super. 537] 58 A.L.R.2d 556 § 10. Not every unwise or irrelevant remark made in the presence of the jury compels a new tria......
-
McIlveen v. State, 53764
...about making an example of the appellant to help make the community safe from crime presents no reversible error. See Henderson v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 573, 295 S.W.2d 215. There were three distinct instances where the jury received other evidence. The issue now becomes one of whether this ......