Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 12 November 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 26034,26034 |
| Citation | 158 Tex.Crim. 6,252 S.W.2d 462 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Allen, Crampton, Johnson & Purcell, and Roger W. Crampton, Wichita Falls, for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
WOODLEY, Commissioner.
The conviction is for possession of marihuana; the punishment, 5 years in the penitentiary.
Appellant and his 3 companions, suspected of having marihuana, were stopped by officers as they returned to Wichita Falls from Ft. Worth. Some marihuana cigarettes were found in the car in which they were riding. The car, a Mercury convertible, was owned and driven by appellant. Other marihuana cigarettes were recovered from a waste basket at the jail where one of the co-defendants was seen to throw them.
Appellant was alone on trial. His court-appointed counsel also represented Carlton Orr, another occupant of the car and a co-defendant.
During the trial the district attorney called Orr as a witness for the state. Appellant's counsel requested that the jury be withdrawn, whereupon Orr, in the absence of the jury, informed the court and the district attorney that he would claim his constitutional privilege and refuse to testify as to questions concerning the offense for fear his answers might incriminate him.
Over the objection of appellant, Orr was questioned by the district attorney as a state's witness in the presence of the jury and was required to claim his privilege before the jury. Appellant then moved the court to declare a mistrial, which motion was overruled.
The action of the court, in permitting the state to call a co-defendant to the stand and require him to claim his privilege against self-incrimination after being informed that the witness would decline to answer if so called, has been held to constitute reversible error.
The fact that the defendant and the witness are represented by the same attorneys merely magnifies the injury to the accused.
In Rice v. State, 123 Tex.Cr.R. 326, 59 S.W.2d 119, 121 we said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haselhuhn v. State
...an accomplice knowing that he would exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege. State v. Duhon, 332 So.2d 245 (La.1976); Johnson v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 6, 252 S.W.2d 462 (1952); DeGesualdo v. People, 147 Colo. 426, 364 P.2d 374, 86 A.L.R.2d 1435 (1961). Cf. State v. Vega, 85 N.M. 269, 511 P.2d......
-
Wall v. State, 40473
...251 S.W. 1099; Messenger v. State, 81 Tex.Cr.R. 465, 198 S.W. 330; Lackey v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 623, 190 S.W.2d 364; Johnson v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 6, 252 S.W.2d 462; Rice v. State, 123 Tex.Cr.R. 326, 59 S.W.2d 119; Washburn v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 448, 299 S.W.2d We still further observ......
-
State v. Dinsio
...v. Granito (1950), 326 Mass. 494, 95 N.E.2d 539; Washburn v. State (1956), 164 Tex.Cr.R. 448, 299 S.W.2d 706; Johnson v. State (1952), 158 Tex.Cr.R. 6, 252 S.W.2d 462; Rice v. State (1932), 121 Tex.Cr.R. 68, 51 S.W.2d 364, Rice v. State (1933), 123 Tex.Cr.R. 326, 59 S.W.2d 119; Garland v. S......
-
People v. Giacalone
.... Page 492. 250 N.W.2d 492. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,. v. Joseph GIACALONE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 13. 399 Mich. 642, 250 N.W.2d 492. Supreme Court of Michigan. Feb. ...State v. Duhon, 332 So.2d 245 (La.1976); Johnson v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 6, 252 S.W.2d 462 . Page 495. (1952); De Gesualdo v. People, 147 Colo. 426, 364 P.2d 374, 86 A.L.R.2d 1435 (1961). Cf. State ......