Hurt v. State
| Decision Date | 10 April 1907 |
| Citation | 101 S.W. 806 |
| Parties | HURT v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Lampasos County Court; M. M. White, Judge.
M. Hurt was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol about his person, and he appeals. Affirmed.
A. McFarland, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted for unlawfully carrying on and about his person a pistol. The statement of facts, as contained in the record, is not approved by the trial judge, and therefore cannot be considered.
The only question, independent of the statement of facts, is found in a bill of exceptions reserved to a refusal of the court to sustain a challenge to the array of jurors. The bill of exceptions shows, as qualified by the judge, that at the previous term of the court, through an oversight and neglect on the part of the court, the commissioners failed to select a jury for the ensuing term. In this condition of affairs the county judge ordered the sheriff, under article 695, Code Cr. Proc. 1895, to summon a designated number of jurors, and out of this number a jury was impaneled and tried appellant. In White v. State, reported in 78 S. W. 1066, 9 Tex. Ct. Rep. 675, the judgment was reversed because the county judge, for quite a number of terms, had refused to appoint jury commissioners to select jurors, principally upon the ground that it was saving expense to the county. Whereever the statute with reference to appointing jury commissioners and the drawing of jurors for trial of cases has been deliberately set aside, or overlooked or disregarded, it will constitute ground for reversal. The law having provided this manner of securing a jury, it is not within the power of the court to willfully set aside a statute of the Legislature and adopt a method of his own as to the manner of securing jurors.
But this rule does not apply where, through inadvertence or oversight, there has been a failure to select jurors by means of jury commissioners. Under article 695, supra, if for any cause the jurors have not been selected in accordance with the law, and the court is thereby authorized to secure jurors for the trial of cases pending, the judgment will not be reversed, usually, should the jurors be selected otherwise than by the jury commissioners. We think this case comes within that rule, and the court certifies, and it is made to appear without contradiction, that at the previous term, through inadvertence, a jury was not selected...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Columbo v. State
...and not selected arbitrarily in accordance with the wishes of any man or set of men in any given case. In the case of Hurt v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 338, 101 S. W. 806, the right of the court to order the sheriff to summon jurors is sustained, it appearing that the failure to appoint jury co......
-
Halbadier v. State
...time. Not so in this case. Appellant was tried by a jury made up largely of men drawn by a regular jury commission. The Hurt Case, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 338, 101 S. W. 806, also cited by the appellant, is not based on facts similar to these in the instant case, and is not at all in Another ground ......
-
Riley v. State
...156, 30 Am. Rep. 126; West v. State, 7 Tex. App. 150; Logan v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 180, 115 S. W. 1192. The case of Hurt v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 338, 101 S. W. 806, cited by appellant, is upon an entirely different proposition. The cases above cited and others make it evident that it was......
- Day v. State