Ingram v. State, 14995.

• Decision Date: 09 March 1932
• Docket Number: No. 14995.,14995.
• Citation: 47 S.W.2d 285
• Parties: INGRAM v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

47 S.W.2d 285

INGRAM v. STATE.

No. 14995.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 9, 1932.

Commissioners' Decision.

Appeal from District Court, Taylor County; M. S. Long, Judge.

John Ingram was convicted of arson, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

J. F. Cunningham, of Abilene, C. R. Carpenter, of Tahoka, and Oliver Cunningham, of Abilene, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CALHOUN, J.

The offense, arson; the punishment, two years' confinement in the penitentiary.

Before announcing ready for trial, appellant filed a motion to quash the jury panel, which was overruled. It appears that the members of the panel had been selected by three jury commissioners appointed by the court. These jury commissioners drew such jury panel in the manner provided by law for drawing jury panels in those counties not having within them any city containing a population of 20,000 or more people. It appears from the bill that there was produced before the court in support of said motion a document as follows:

"Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington.

                                    "January 19, 1931
                

"I hereby certify, that according to the official count of the returns of the Fifteenth Census of the United States, on file in the Bureau of the Census, the population of the City of Abilene, County of Taylor, State of Texas, taken as of April 1, 1930, is twenty-three thousand, one hundred and seventy-five (23,175).

                   "[Seal]             W. M. Stewart
                                  "Director of the Census."
                

Appellant sought a jury drawn in accordance with the provisions of article 2094, Revised Statutes of 1925, as amended by the Acts of 41st Legislature 1929, c. 43, § 1 (Vernon's Ann. Civ. St., art. 2094), which provides for the jury wheel system in counties having a population of at least 58,000 or having therein a city of at least 20,000 population as shown by the preceding federal census. The effect of the census as taken of April 1, 1930, was to place the county of the prosecution under the provisions of article 2094, Revised Statutes 1925, as amended. The motion to quash the jury panel should have been sustained. The exact question here involved has been decided in the case of Claude Ervin v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 44 S.W.(2d) 380, wherein it was held that the motion to quash the jury panel should have been sustained. The question was fully discussed in the original opinion by Judge Christian and in the opinion by Presiding Judge Morrow on motion for rehearing, and further discussion is unnecessary. See, also, Click v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 44 S.W.(2d) 992.

By bill of exception No. 2, it is shown that appellant objected to the state being allowed to introduce in evidence part of the purported written confession of the appellant which was admitted in evidence by the court before the jury. It seems that the next day after the fire the fire marshal of the town of Abilene went to the place of business of appellant, and asked the appellant to come down to the county attorney's office, that he wanted to ask him some questions concerning the fire wherein the house of his wife was burned. It appears that, after the appellant had gone to the office of the county attorney, he was interrogated as to what he knew about the burning of his wife's house. It appears further from the evidence offered that the statements admitted were reduced to writing, read over to appellant, and signed by him. The confession on its face appears to have been taken in strict compliance with the...