Holland v. State
| Decision Date | 05 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 10987.) |
| Citation | 298 S.W. 898 |
| Parties | HOLLAND v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Runnels County; J. O. Woodward, Judge.
Griggs Holland was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Crager and Dickey, of Ballinger, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State's Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
The offense is transporting intoxicating liquor; the punishment confinement in the penitentiary for three years.
The record contains fourteen bills of exception. In view of the fact that the case must be reversed for the error hereinafter pointed out, we deem it unnecessary to consider in detail appellant's several bills of exception, as the matters complained of therein are not likely to occur on another trial of the case.
By bill of exception No. 1 appellant complains of the action of the court in refusing to permit him on voir dire examination to individually examine each of the jurors in order that he might intelligently exercise the peremptory challenges allowed him by statute. The bill, as presented, is insufficient to manifest error. Its recitals show that the court instructed counsel for appellant to propound to the jurors in a body certain questions which he was then propounding to individual jurors. It is further shown by the bill that, in connection with his instruction to counsel, the court stated that if, after propounding the questions to the jurors in a body, counsel should desire to question any individual juror further, the privilege of so doing would be accorded him. There being no recital in the bill showing that counsel for appellant was not permitted by the court to further individually examine the jurors, the presumption must be indulged that he was accorded such right. While the right to appear by counsel, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, carries with it the right of counsel, within reasonable limits, to examine each juror individually in order to prepare himself for the intelligent exercise of the peremptory challenges allowed him by statute, we are constrained to hold that appellant's bill of exception fails to show that his counsel did not have the opportunity of examining each juror individually. Article 1, § 10, Constitution of Texas; article 3, C. C. P.; Plair v. State, 102 Tex. Cr. R. 628, 279 S. W. 267.
In his motion for a new trial, appellant alleged that the jury, after retiring to deliberate upon the case, received other testimony. The specific complaint is that, before the penalty was determined, one of the jurors stated, in the presence and hearing of the jury, that he knew appellant; that he was a ringleader among the negroes; that this was not his first offense; and that the jury would be getting at the source of trouble if they would send him to the penitentiary for a good term. Appellant's bill of exception shows that the testimony complained of had not been received in evidence during the trial. The testimony heard by the court on the motion was, in substance, this: The juror, alleged by appellant to have made the statements complained of, stated in the presence of the jury, before the penalty had been fixed, that he knew appellant; that he ran a barber shop; that his barber shop was a holdout for the rough element, an element that stayed out at night; that he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garza v. State
...... Information given by one of the jurors to others is new and other testimony within the meaning of the statute. Holland v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 582, 298 S.W. 898, and authorities cited. Where, after retirement, the jury receive other evidence damaging to appellant, the presumption of inj......
-
Jones v. State
...54 S.W. 2d 145; Moore v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 215, 47 S.W.2d 619; Gray v. State, 118 Tex.Cr. R. 552, 39 S.W.2d 625; Holland v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 582, 298 S.W. 898, 899. Many of the above cases hold that when the testimony is received, the injury is presumed and must be rebutted. The only......
-
McGary v. State
...other jurors is "other testimony." Garza, 630 S.W.2d at 274; Cooper v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 650, 7 S.W.2d 85 (1928); Holland v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 582, 298 S.W. 898 (1927). This "other evidence" was received by the jury. Rogers v. State, 551 S.W.2d 369, 370 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Rawlings v. ......
-
Arnold v. State, 15903.
...damaging to the appellant, the presumption of injury will obtain. Brown v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 639, 276 S. W. 929; Holland v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 582, 298 S. W. 898. Under the circumstances, we are unable to reach the conclusion that the matters constituted a bare reference to former ......