Martinez v. State, 62056
| Decision Date | 15 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 62056,62056,3 |
| Citation | 638 S.W.2d 488 |
| Parties | Armando Gonzalez MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Neil Siegel, El Paso, for appellant.
Steve W. Simmons, Dist. Atty. and Paul J. Kubinski, Asst. Dist. Atty., El Paso, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before DALLY, W. C. DAVIS and TEAGUE, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of burglary; the punishment, enhanced by a prior felony conviction, is imprisonment for fifteen years.
We overrule the appellant's contention that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; but we find that another ground of error requires reversal of the judgment. The appellant asserts, and we agree, that it was error not to allow him to present evidence to the jury to support his plea of former jeopardy which raised fact issues for the jury to determine.
Article 36.13, V.A.C.C.P. provides:
"After cause is submitted to the jury, it may be discharged when it cannot agree and both parties consent to its discharge; or the court may in its discretion discharge it where it has been kept together for such time as to render it altogether improbable that it can agree."
Prior to trial the appellant filed a sworn plea of former jeopardy alleging that he had theretofor been tried for the same offense on the same indictment and after a jury had failed to reach a verdict it was discharged over his objection. He further alleges that the jury was discharged before it had been kept together for such time as to render it altogether improbable that it could agree on a verdict.
"It is the general rule in this state, well supported by authority, that a plea of jeopardy, being sufficient in law, raises an issue of fact which should be submitted to the jury for its determination."
Dunn v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 126, 242 S.W. 1049 (1922); Cloninger v. State, 101 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 274 S.W. 596 (1925); Hipple v. State, 80 Tex.Cr.R. 531, 191 S.W. 1150 (1917); Bland v. State, 42 Tex.Cr.R. 286, 59 S.W. 1119 (1900); Vela v. State, 49 Tex.Cr.R. 588, 95 S.W. 529 (1906); Rodgers v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 245 S.W. 697 (1922); Chadwick v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 269, 216 S.W. 397 (1919); Rodriguez v. State, 466 S.W.2d 788 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).
Whether the court discharged the former jury prematurely for inability to agree and reach a verdict is a question of fact which, if properly presented and not waived, must be submitted to the jury on a plea of former jeopardy. Yantis v. State, 95 Tex.Cr.R. 541, 255 S.W. 180 (1923); Villarreal v. State, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Edwards v. State
-
Grundstrom v. State
... ... Page 926 ... counsel. It is well-established that an appellant may not complain of testimony which he himself elicited. Martinez v. State, 504 S.W.2d 897, 899 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Dyche v. State, 490 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); and Whatley v. State, 488 S.W.2d 422, ... ...
- Gardner v. State
-
Defenses and special evidentiary charges
...find the allegation of defendant’s special plea of former conviction is __________ (Answer “True” or “Untrue”). See, Martinez v. State , 638 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982). §3:800 Prosecutor Misconduct — Conduct Intended to Impel Defendant to Request Mistrial In this case the defendant, AB......
-
Table of cases
...v. State 628 S.W.2d 265 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg) aff’d , 641 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) 8:410 Martinez v. State 638 S.W.2d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1982) 3:790 Martinez v. State 775 S.W.2d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) 3:1760 Martinez v. State 883 S.W.2d 771 (Tex. App......