Roberts v. State
| Decision Date | 02 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | (No. 4441.) |
| Citation | 195 S.W. 189 |
| Parties | ROBERTS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Denton County; C. F. Spencer, Judge.
Jeff Roberts, alias Dickey, was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.
Clark Owsley, of Denton, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of murder, and his punishment assessed at 30 years' confinement in the penitentiary.
The case is before us without statement of facts and with one bill of exceptions. That bill presents only the question of race discrimination. It is shown by the bill that one negro killed another negro. Race discrimination is alleged by defendant in selecting grand and petit jurors. The bills show that the grand jury and the petit jury were selected from jurors selected by jury commissioners and were composed of white men exclusively. The state contends that, inasmuch as the defendant did not object to array of grand jurors, he is therefore too late in presenting that question after the return of the indictment. This question was decided adversely to the state in Carter's Case, 177 U. S. at page 442, 20 Sup. Ct. 687, 44 L. Ed. 839.
With reference to the discrimination, there were two witnesses testified; one of these apparently was a negro, and the other one was one of the jury commissioners, who selected all of the jurors for that term of the court—grand and petit. The negro witness stated, in a general way, facts he thought discriminated against the selection of negro jurors in Denton county. There was no particular fact upon which he predicated this view, except that none had been selected for a number of years. He also indicates in his testimony that he thought a negro might have a better opportunity, where some of the jurors were negroes, than he would where they were all white jurors. He said, also, there were quite a number of negro men in the county who were qualified to sit on the jury under the law, but that he knew of none having so served for years. The white witness testified that he was one of the jury commissioners, and was furnished with a list of jurors of the county out of which the commissioners were to select jurors for the term of court at which appellant was indicted and tried; that they were instructed by the court to select competent jurors. He further stated that they did this; that they understood their duty under the instructions given by the court; that the list of jurors furnished the commissioners from which to make these selections to serve at the term of court contained a few negroes, consisting in proportion of about 1 to 50; that he, as commissioner, did not select any negro on the jury, and did not believe any of them competent; that, where he was not informed as to the competency of a juror on the list, he did not select him; that he did not know whether these negroes were competent, and had no knowledge in regard to the matter, and therefore he did not select any of them. His testimony indicates he made this rule general, not only as to negroes, but as to white men; but he also stated that he did not make a selection of any negro and did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Juarez v. State
...in proper form, and, under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, were made in due time." See, also, Roberts v. State, 81 Tex. Cr. R. 227, 195 S. W. 189. Thus it would seem that the court reached and announced the conclusion that although an accused might have raised the q......
-
Hamilton v. State
...negroes because of race or color. To the same effect is the case of Ross v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 7 S.W.2d 1078, also Roberts v. State, 81 Tex.Cr.R. 227, 195 S.W. 189; Pollard v. State, 58 Tex.Cr.R. 299, 125 S. W. 390; Mitchell v. State, 105 Tex.Cr.R. 297, 288 S.W. In the Ryan case, supra, an......
-
Ross v. State
...juries. That fact alone would not show an intentional discrimination against them because of their race or color. Roberts v. State, 81 Tex. Cr. R. 227, 195 S. W. 189; Pollard v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 299, 125 S. W. 390; Mitchell v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 297, 288 S. W. 224. Appellant seems ......
-
Mitchell v. State
...against his race in selecting the particular grand jury whch indicted him. This inference would be unwarranted. Roberts v. State, 81 Tex. Cr. R. 227, 195 S. W. 189; Pollard v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 299, 125 S. W. 390. Where a party asserts that discrimination was practiced, it devolves on h......