Hooper v. State, 16520.
| Citation | 70 S.W.2d 431 |
| Decision Date | 11 April 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 16520.,16520. |
| Parties | HOOPER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Shelby County; T. O. Davis, Judge.
Gid Hooper was convicted of the offense of assault with intent to murder, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Sam Lane, of Center, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The appellant was tried and convicted of the offense of assault with intent to murder, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of 10 years.
The appellant's only complaint is that the court erred in overruling his amended motion for new trial in which he urges various reasons why the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded, one of which was that Calvin Enman, who was selected as a juror in this case, had theretofore been convicted of theft in the justice court of precinct No. 1 in and for Shelby county, Tex., which conviction was prior to the trial of this case; that the defendant had no knowledge that the said Calvin Enman had been convicted of theft until after the jury had returned their verdict and not until after the defendant had filed his original motion for new trial herein. The appellant attached to said amended original motion for new trial the affidavit of the juror Calvin Enman from which it appears that he (the said Calvin Enman) was one of the jurors who tried Gid Hooper, the appellant, and convicted him of the offense of assault with intent to murder and assessed his punishment at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of 10 years. Upon the hearing of this motion for new trial, the court also heard evidence which showed that the juror Calvin Enman had been convicted of petty theft in the justice court of precinct No. 1 of Shelby county, Tex., about a year prior to the trial of the instant case.
Article 619, C. C. P., reads as follows:
etc.
Article 619, C. C. P., reads as follows: "No juror shall be impaneled when it appears that he is subject to the third, fourth or fifth clause of challenge in article 616, tho both parties may consent."
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beasley v. State
...challenge); also Hughes v. State, 105 Tex.Cr.R. 57, 284 S.W. 952 (juror felon--substantial error cannot be waived); Hooper v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 118, 70 S.W.2d 431 (juror felon--defendant cannot waive); Johnson v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 162, 84 S.W.2d 240 (dictum that judgment void revised ......
-
Thomas v. State, 69811
...Terrill v. State, 112 S.W.2d 734, 735-736 (Tex.Cr.App.1938); Johnson v. State, 84 S.W.2d 240, 241-242 (Tex.Cr.App.1935); Hooper v. State, 70 S.W.2d 431 (Tex.Cr.App.1934); Rice v. State, 52 Tex.Crim. 359, 107 S.W. 832 (1908). See Frame v. State, 615 S.W.2d 766 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). See also Ex ......
-
Ex parte Bronson
...On authority of the Greer, Easterwood, and Rice cases, the judgments were reversed. A similar reversal was ordered in Hooper v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 118, 70 S.W.2d 431, when it was shown on motion for new trial that a juror had been convicted of misdemeanor In the Hooper case, after quoting......
-
Frame v. State
...disqualified" within the meaning of Articles 35.19 and 35.16, supra, as having "been convicted of theft." In Hooper v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 118, 70 S.W.2d 431, at 431 (1934) the Court held "The challenge is not confined to felony theft, but is broad enough to include and comprehend within i......