Meyers v. State

• Decision Date: 21 April 1894
• Citation: 26 S.W. 196
• Parties: MEYERS v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

26 S.W. 196

MEYERS v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 21, 1894.

Appeal from district court, McLennan county; L. W. Goodrich, Judge.

Application of D. H. Meyers for release on bail. From an order denying the same, he appeals. Affirmed.

McGregor & Moore and Henderson & Streetman, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SIMKINS, J.

1. We do not think that the court erred in refusing bail in this case.

2. On the habeas corpus trial, relator objected to the evidence of A. H. Jones, deceased, taken at the inquest held over W. A. Binkly, deceased, on the ground that relator was forced, over his protest and that of his counsel, to be present at said inquest, and that he refused to take any part therein. The district judge overruled the objection, and admitted the testimony. The record shows: That on the 14th day of January 1894, relator killed W. A. Binkly, and mortally wounded A. H. Jones, who died the next morning. In holding the inquest over the body of Binkly, A. H. Jones was examined as a witness, and relator was required by the justice of the peace to be present; and he was present, in person and by attorney, during said examination, and the said A. H. Jones was the only witness examined. That relator and his counsel objected to being present, and, although offered the privilege of cross-examining the witness, refused to do so. Relator was brought to the inquest from the jail, where he was confined under charge of the murder of W. A. Binkly. Article 999, Code Cr. Proc., declares that, should the justice deem proper, the inquest may be held in private; but in all cases where a person has been arrested, charged with having caused the death of the deceased, such person and his counsel shall have the right to be present at the inquest, and to examine witnesses and introduce evidence. Evidently, it was the object of the Code to limit the power of the justice as to holding private inquests, and to give a person, when arrested for the murder, the right to be present and defend himself, and change the proceedings into an examining court. It does not follow that the person accused cannot be compelled by the justice to attend the inquest when he is under arrest, and a necessity exists therefor, nor that the justice may not hold an examining court while holding an inquest. Code Cr. Proc. art. 1011. The witness was dying. The necessities of the case probably required prompt action in obtaining the evidence; and it seems wholly immaterial whether the justice styled the proceeding an "inquest," or "examining trial." The relator was charged with the murder. He was confronted with said witness. He was present, though unwillingly, and was represented by able counsel. The privilege of cross-examining the witness was offered to him, and refused. The relator does not show a deprivation of a single right. The...