Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 27 May 1896 |
| Citation | 35 S.W. 975 |
| Parties | JONES v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Walker county; A. T. McKinney, Special Judge.
Walter Jones was convicted of an assault with intent to murder, and appeals. Affirmed.
W. O. B. Gillaspie, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of an assault with intent to murder, and appeals.
1. He made an application for a continuance, based upon two grounds: (1) "That since his incarceration, he has been denied access to the public, his family and friends, and they have been denied the privilege of consulting with him, and he has been thereby prevented from getting his case ready for trial;" and (2) "because there exists at the present term of this court so great a prejudice in the public mind against him that witnesses knowing facts material to his defense are terrorized and intimidated thereby, and will not declare such facts to him or to his attorney, and it would be extremely dangerous for him to go to trial; and a fair and impartial trial would be denied him if he is forced to trial at this term of the court." The bill of exceptions shows that he was not denied the privilege of consulting with his friends, and that no request was made to the sheriff for that purpose. As to the second ground, it is sufficient to say that it might constitute, if true, a ground for a change of venue, but not for a continuance. See Miller v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 319, 20 S. W. 1103.
2. In another bill of exceptions, appellant alleges that there were 26 jurors drawn by the clerk from the box, instead of 24, as required by article 683, Code Cr. Proc. 1895. The trial judge qualifies this bill in the following language. "The defendant's counsel, about the time the jury was drawn, made a general objection to the manner of organizing the jury; but the fact that there was more than twenty four names drawn out of the box was not called to the attention of the court, nor any exception thereto reserved." If, as a matter of fact, 26 names were drawn, which was an innovation upon the statute, it should not have occurred; and if it did occur, because of the fact that 26 names, and not 24, were drawn from the box, exception should have been taken specifically to the action of the court in the organization of the jury; and, in order to require notice at the hands of this court, the bill must point out specifically the ground of the objection, and this ground of objection must be stated to the court at the time exception is taken. If the grounds of objection are specifically stated, the attention of the trial court will then be called directly to the matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowe v. State
...that it is too late after the verdict to complain of errors committed in the impaneling or organization of the jury. Jones v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 433, 35 S. W. 975; Moore v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 3, 114 S. W. 807; Ellington v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 427, 140 S. W. 1101; Kinch v. State, 70 ......
-
Bartlett v. State
...does not show. Kramer v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 29 S. W. 157; Segars v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 45, 31 S. W. 370; Jones v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 433, 35 S. W. 975; Jordan v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 224, 38 S. W. 780, 39 S. W. 111; Stevens v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. R. 282, 150 S. W. 944; Poulter ......
-
Singleton v. State
...trial, as is required by the holdings of this Court in such cases as Campbell v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 494, 56 S.W.2d 460; Jones v. State, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 433, 35 S.W. 975; and Caldwell v. State, 12 Tex.App. 302, and the cases therein Reliance is had, however, upon the holdings of the Supreme C......
-
Moore v. State
...not available when raised for the first time on motion for a new trial. Caldwell v. State, 12 Tex. App. 316. See Jones v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 434, 35 S. W. 975. In the recent case of Wilson v. State, 210 S. W. 802, the opinion is expressed that the words "before the trial begins" in the s......