Shannon v. State

• Decision Date: 01 December 1894
• Parties: SHANNON v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 540

28 S.W. 540

SHANNON v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

December 1, 1894.

On rehearing. Granted. Former opinion (26 S. W. 410) reversed.

Wharton Bates and J. S. McEachin, for the motion.

DAVIDSON, J.

Motion for rehearing herein suggests several matters for consideration, one of which we deem should be noticed, to wit, that this court erred in sustaining the ruling of the trial court overruling appellant's challenges for cause to a juror who tried this cause below. Having been asked the statutory question, the juror answered that he "had an opinion, from the testimony in and the trial of said cause, as to the guilt of this defendant, and that it would require evidence to remove that opinion." The "said cause" referred to was State v. White, charged with the same offense, the testimony being in substance the same, and transaction identical. The juror heard the trial of White, and hence his conclusion. "For the purpose of ascertaining whether cause of challenge exists, the juror shall be first asked whether, in his opinion, the conclusion so established will influence his verdict. If he answer in the affirmative, he shall be discharged; if he answer in the negative, he shall be further examined by the court, or under its sanction, as to how his conclusion was formed and the extent to which it will affect his action, and if it appears to have been formed from reading newspaper accounts, communications, statement or reports, or from mere rumor or hearsay, and the juror states on oath that he feels able, notwithstanding such opinion, to render an impartial verdict upon the law and the evidence, the court, if satisfied that he is impartial and will render such verdict, may, in its discretion, admit him as competent to serve in such case; but if the court, in its discretion, is not satisfied that he is impartial the juror shall be discharged." Such are the provisions of the statute. Willson's Cr. St. § 2281 (Acts 1885, p. 90). It will be seen, by comparing the present statute with the provisions of the law prior to the amendment of 1885, that the changes were farreaching, and that this is the first time that a construction of the present statute has been called for at the hands of this court, in so far as we are informed.

As to the ability of the juror to disregard his conclusion or opinion: Recurring to the law in regard to the selection of jurors, we desire to say that it is a fundamental proposition, under the constitution and...