Jester v. State
| Decision Date | 03 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 9026.) |
| Citation | 273 S.W. 570 |
| Parties | JESTER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Cooke County; C. R. Pearman, Judge.
L. W. Jester was convicted of manufacturing liquor, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Roy M. Finley, of Sherman, and Culp, Culp & Culp, of Gainesville, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
The appellant was convicted in the district court of Cooke county for the offense of manufacturing liquor, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of 1 year.
The facts show that appellant and 3 other parties were arrested at a still in Cooke county and charged with manufacturing liquor, and the still was brought to Gainesville and placed in the sheriff's office several weeks before the time of the trial.
There is but one question raised that requires discussion in this case. Appellant claims by proper bills of exception that 13 of the venire, who were declared by the court qualified to try this case, were objectionable and disqualified under statements they made on their voir dire examination. Appellant further correctly contends that he only had 10 peremptory challenges under the statute and that he was therefore forced to accept three objectionable and disqualified jurors to try this case. His bills clearly show that the court held each of the 13 men hereinafter mentioned qualified and tendered them to him with 19 others from which to draw the jury.
In order that this opinion may be understood, and the issues properly and correctly stated, it is necessary to make the following statement: The juror Cravens stated that he was in the sheriff's office when the captured still was in there, and that he heard it said that it was one of the best stills in the country, and that he heard people in there discuss the manner in which the parties running it were arrested, and that he was looking at the still and trying to find out something about it, and that he read in the papers about 4 men running it and being captured, and that in his opinion the parties captured with it must have been guilty, that he formed this opinion from what he read in the papers and from what he observed and heard in the sheriff's office, and that he had heard nothing since then to remove that opinion, and that he still had that opinion, and that he would go into the jury box with that opinion in his mind if he should be chosen on the jury. The juror further declared he could try the defendant upon the evidence and according to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hepworth v. State
...on the list jurors who were in a legal sense objectionable. See Willis v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 333, 239 S. W. 212; Jester v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 409, 273 S. W. 570; Dunne v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 12, 263 S. W. 608. Waiving that question, however, the rule seems well settled that the mer......
-
Jones v. State
...action relative to the juror King cannot be reconciled with Collins v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 228, 206 S. W. 688; Jester v State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 409, 273 S. W. 570; and Quinn v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 155, 101 S. W. 248. In Collins' Case it is stated that the juror who had an opinion could h......