Prater v. State, 18553.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 18553.,18553. |
| Citation | 95 S.W.2d 971 |
| Parties | PRATER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Criminal District Court, No. 2, Dallas County; Noland G. Williams, Judge.
Walter Prater was convicted of rape, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
David M. Weinstein and Frank D. Ivey, both of Dallas, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is rape; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for 99 years.
The record is before us without a statement of facts.
It is shown in bill of exception No. 1 that after the jury had retired to deliberate they sent a note to the judge in which they made the following request: The note was received by the trial judge in chambers in the presence of counsel for appellant. Appellant was in jail at the time and was not brought to the courtroom. However, appellant's counsel agreed that the trial judge might reply to the request as follows: "In answer to the above question the court can not answer this question." The holding in Heald v. State (Tex. Cr.App.) 92 S.W.(2d) 1042, militates against the conclusion that reversible error is reflected. The court undertook to give no additional instructions, but merely replied that he could not answer the question. However, the procedure provided by the statute should have been followed (Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. arts. 677, 679).
As qualified, bill of exception No. 2 fails to reflect error. We quote the qualification, as follows: "The court does not certify the facts as stated are true. The affidavit of insanity was filed on November 13th, 1935, by the Hon. John White one of the attorneys of the defendant. The Hon. David Weinstein having theretofore been representing the defendant by appointment of the court. On the same day the affidavit was filed, the defendant's attorneys in open court in the presence of the defendant and defendant's father, asked the court to allow them to withdraw the affidavit of insanity and to pass the case for trial on its merits and the attorneys stated that they had decided that they wanted to try all issues of insanity and fact at one "trial, which motion was by the court granted and the cause was passed to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...S.W.2d 844; Choiniere v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 582, 204 S.W.2d 840; Guajardo v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 201, 139 S.W.2d 85; Prater v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 35, 95 S.W.2d 971; Heald v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 178, 92 S.W.2d 1042, and Willis v. State, 24 Tex.App. 586, 6 S.W. 857. The appellant, on th......
-
Allaben v. State
...331 S.W.2d 929; Davis v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 399, 328 S.W.2d 765; Gibson v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 582, 223 S.W.2d 625; Prater v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 35, 95 S.W.2d 971; Heald v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 178, 92 S.W.2d 1042, nor is a referral to the original charge considered an additional instr......
-
Jones v. People
...Prejudicial error is obvious.' If the jury had in mind time off for good behavior, it is of interest to note that in Prater v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 35, 95 S.W.2d 971, the court held that no prejudicial error resulted from the trial court's refusal to answer the jury's query as to the effect......
-
Gibson v. State, 24407.
...of Henderson v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 596, 106 S.W.2d 291. See also Todd v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 553, 248 S.W. 695; and Prater v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 35, 95 S.W.2d 971. No reversible error appearing from the record, the judgment of the trial court is Opinion approved by the Court. On Motion ......