Quarles v. State, 37285
| Decision Date | 02 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 37285,37285 |
| Citation | 385 S.W.2d 395 |
| Parties | James H. QUARLES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
James H. Quarles, in pro. per.
Franklin L. Smith, County Atty., Corpus Christi, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is barratry; the punishment, 90 days in jail and a fine of $500.00.
In October 1963, an explosion occurred at a refinery in Corpus Christi. Several workers were killed and others were seriously injured. On that day appellant and his co-indictee, MacKenzie, left Houston, went to Corpus Christi, secured lodgings at a motel, a map of the city and a newspaper which carried the names and addresses of those who had been killed and injured, located them on the map and the next morning visited a number of the victims' wives.
As to what transpired during these visits, we need only quote from the testimony of two witnesses. Mr. Timon, who was at the home of his daughter whose husband was killed in the explosion at the time of appellant's visit, testified that appellant and MacKenzie came inquiring for his daughter but that he spoke to them and that appellant said, 'we are attorneys' from Houston and that they wanted to represent his daughter in her claim against Coastal States. Appellant further told him, Upon being told that Mr. Timon had counsel of his own choosing, the two left.
Mr. Schkade, who was at the home of his sister whose husband had been killed in the explosion, testified that appellant and MacKenzie came there and appellant stated that he represented a law firm from Houston and would like to represent her. He testified that appellant further stated that he would handle his sister's claim for 15 percent of all she might recover over and above her deceased husband's Workman's Compensation, but that Corpus Christi lawyers would probably charge her 33 1/3 percent including the Workman's Compensation claim. He stated that appellant asked his sister to sign a contract and exhibited newspaper clippings which he said contained accounts of awards that he had been able to recover in previous cases and told his sister that he might be able to get her an award of from $200,000 to $250,000, but that his sister refused to sign the contract.
Appellant did not testify in his own behalf, but called his co-indictee who testified that he was a private investigator in Houston and had accompanied appellant to Corpus Christi and on the visits to the various families of those who had been injured, but that appellant was unable to get anyone to sign a contingent fee contract with him. On cross examination he agreed that while appellant was talking to the parties, 'a question was raised' in his mind, and he felt like he was 'mixed up in something you (he) didn't want any part of.'
Appellant also introduced into evidence the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals at Houston in Quarles v. State Bar of Texas, 316 S.W.2d 797.
Appellant represented himself in the trial court and this Court. There is no question of his indigency.
He raises several questions. He complained in the trial court and here that he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quarles v. State of Texas
...them to vacate prior convictions for barratry, for example, Quarles v. State, 398 S.W.2d 935 (Tex.Crim.App.1966); Quarles v. State, 385 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.Crim.App. 1965), cert. denied 382 U.S. 829, 86 S.Ct. 65, 15 L.Ed.2d 73 (1967); b. to prevent the enforcement of an allegedly unconstitution......
-
Stern v. State ex rel. Ansel
...779, n. 8 (Tex.Crim.App.1984), overruled on other grounds by Ex parte Edone, 740 S.W.2d 446 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Quarles v. State, 385 S.W.2d 395, 397 (Tex.Crim.App.1964), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 829, 86 S.Ct. 65, 15 L.Ed.2d 73 A prosecuting attorney is the servant of the grand jury. Among h......
-
Euresti v. Valdez
...to testify, and its dictum that communication to a grand jury is "absolutely privileged" is based on Hott and on Quarles v. State, 385 S.W.2d 395, 397 (Tex.Crim.App.1964), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 829, 86 S.Ct. 65, 15 L.Ed.2d 73 (1965). Quarles concerns the admissibility, rather than the disc......
-
Hullum v. State
...courts is mandatory. We find no cases in point. It would appear that a similar contention was summarily overruled in Quarles v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 385 S.W.2d 395, however a review of that record reveals that the issue there involved was sufficiency of the transfer, and whether the document......