Spriggs v. State, 26998
| Decision Date | 26 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 26998,26998 |
| Citation | 268 S.W.2d 191,160 Tex.Crim. 188 |
| Parties | SPRIGGS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Tirey & Tirey, Waco, Jack W. Prescott, Cameron, for appellant.
Wesley Dice, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The appeal is from a life sentence for murder.
In view of the disposition hereof a statement of the evidence is not deemed necessary.
Bill of Exception No. 1 relates to argument of the prosecutor. It is apparent that during the course of his investigation of the case the prosecutor had secured a statement from one of his witnesses. Such statement had not been introduced in evidence. In his argument, he 'was holding the paper about which he was talking in his hand and waving it before the jury and was pointing to and referring to said paper' when he said:
The court seemed to recognize that counsel was testifying because he said, 'You are outside the record, Mr. State's Attorney * * *.' but he overruled the objection and refused to instruct the jury not to consider the same.
This was, of course, going outside the record in order to bolster his own witness. The harmful effect of the error is apparent.
Also the contention is raised that a new trial should have been granted under Section 7 of Article 753, C.C.P.
It was shown on the hearing of appellant's motion for new trial that after the jury had agreed on a verdict of guilty, and while they were divided as to the punishment to be assessed, an unidentified juror represented to a fellow juror who was voting for a term of years, that if the punishment was assessed at life, appellant could not be paroled, whereas if a term of years was assessed he would be able to obtain a parole.
Following this statement, the juror changed his vote from five years to life.
We cannot agree that the testimony of seven of the jurors to the effect that they did not hear or make the statement was sufficient to authorize the trial judge to concluded that the remark was not made.
The statement of the unidentified juror constituted the giving of testimony to the jury--testimony which was clearly wrong; and under our ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jewell v. State, s. 58315-58321
...which adversely affects the defendant, constitutes reversible error. Scaling v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 499 S.W.2d 318; Spriggs v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 188, 268 S.W.2d 191; Jackson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 323, 248 S.W.2d 748; Price v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 161, 199 S.W.2d 168; Daniel v. State, T......
-
Munroe v. State
...have presumed that the defendant was harmed when the jury's discussion involved a misstatement of the parole laws. Spriggs v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 188, 268 S.W.2d 191 (1954); Price v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 161, 199 S.W.2d 168 (1946) (opinion on The inconsistencies among these cases demonstra......
-
Skillern v. State
...as to misconduct, standing alone, has been held by this Court to constitute "no evidence" that such did not occur. Spriggs v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 188, 268 S.W.2d 191; Citizen v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 265 S.W.2d 109. The State having wholly failed to rebut the presumption of harm from v......
-
Sneed v. State
...Smith v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 315, 333 S.W.2d 385 (1960); Mays v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 339, 320 S.W.2d 13 (1959); Spriggs v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 188, 268 S.W.2d 191 (1954); Jackson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 323, 248 S.W.2d 748 (1952); and Price v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 161, 199 S.W.2d 168 (19......