Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 05 June 1912 |
| Citation | 148 S.W. 300 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; F. L. Hawkins, Judge.
J. B. Johnson was convicted of larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.
J. G. Matthews, of Greenville, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was indicted in Kaufman county, Tex., charged with the theft of a horse, tried and convicted, and his punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the state penitentiary.
There is but one question raised on appeal that it will be necessary to discuss. When the case was called for trial, appellant interposed a plea, in proper form, alleging that he made an agreement with the officials of Hunt county that he should not be prosecuted for this offense; that he had been carried before the grand jury of Hunt county, and, relying on such agreement, had testified before the grand jury, and on his testimony an indictment had been returned against one Adams, charging him with the theft of this horse; that said indictment was then pending against Adams in the district court of Hunt county, and he was ready and willing to testify in said case against Adams; that he had violated the agreement in no sense, and under this agreement he was exempt from punishment for this offense.
The evidence on this plea was heard, along with the other testimony on the trial, and after hearing the evidence the court refused to submit the plea in his charge to the jury, and this is assigned as error. If the evidence was not such as would justify and authorize a finding by the jury that a legal and enforceable agreement had been made, then there was no error in the court refusing to submit the plea in his charge; if there was, of course, it would be such an error as would require a reversal of the case.
It appears that on or about the 11th day of last November a horse was stolen from James Parkerson at a point near the county line of Kaufman and Hunt counties; that is so near the county line as to give jurisdiction of the offense to either or both of said counties. The sheriff of Kaufman county caused the arrest of defendant, Johnson, in the city of Dallas, and he was found in possession of the horse; Adams also being arrested at the same time and place in a few moments after the arrest of Johnson. A complaint was filed against both Johnson and Adams in the justice court of precinct No. 1 of Kaufman county on the 14th day of November, and they were arrested on that complaint on that day. Waiving an examining trial, they were bound over to the district court of Kaufman county and placed in jail in that county. The grand jury of Hunt county, subsequent to the time appellant was arrested on the complaint in Kaufman county, and while he was in jail in that county, being in session, issued an attachment, directed to the sheriff of Kaufman county, commanding him to bring both appellant and Adams before that body as witnesses, and in obedience to the attachment carried them to Hunt county, when, after they had appeared before the grand jury on the same day, the sheriff carried them back to Kaufman county jail. It appears that while appellant was before the grand jury in Hunt county an agreement was entered into, as to the terms of which the witnesses are not in entire accord. The foreman and some other members of the grand jury say that there had been considerable complaint of horse stealing in Hunt county; and when appellant was before the grand jury they agreed with appellant that, if he would testify in regard to the theft of this Parkerson horse and other matters, he would not be prosecuted in Hunt county for any offense in regard to which he might testify; but they say they informed him they could not secure him against a prosecution on the complaint then pending in Kaufman county.
Appellant and several witnesses testify that the agreement was that he was to be exempt from prosecuti...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
...that the suggestion thereof by the testimony on the hearing in this case would have authorized a finding that such was a fact. Johnson v. State, 148 S. W. 300; C. C. P. arts. 37, 643; Fleming v. State, 28 Tex. App. 234, 12 S. W. 605; Kelly v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 480, 38 S. W. 39; Diserin ......
-
Taff v. State
...not bind his principal, the state of Texas. We discussed the construction of this statute at some length in the case of Johnson v. State, reported in 148 S. W. 300, and there cite the authorities, and do not deem it necessary to do so again. The Legislature, under the provisions of our Cons......