Springer v. State

• Decision Date: 11 October 1911
• Citation: 140 S.W. 99
• Parties: SPRINGER v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

140 S.W. 99

SPRINGER v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

October 11, 1911.

Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; James R. Harper, Judge.

Herman Springer was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Affirmed.

C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PRENDERGAST, J.

The appellant was indicted and convicted of forgery and his penalty fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

It seems his defense, or at least chief defense, was insanity. The court and jury heard all the testimony on that point as well as the whole case. The court, in appropriate charges which are not complained of, submitted that issue to the jury, and the jury found against the appellant.

There are no bills of exception or other complaints of the action of the lower court by motion for new trial, except: First, the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and evidence; second, the charge of the court was contrary to the law and the evidence in that same did not cover the law of the case and was misleading to the jury; and, third, that one of the jurors (naming him) was, at the time of being sworn, impaneled, and charged, insane and of unsound mind, and as a consequence the appellant was denied his constitutional right of a trial by twelve men.

The third ground is not presented by bill of exception and cannot be considered, because the record does not show what the facts are with regard thereto.

The other two grounds are too general and present no error.

We have carefully considered the evidence —the whole of it—and it clearly justified the conviction.

The indictment was returned and filed September 13, 1910, charging the forgery to have been committed on August 17, 1910. The trial was had September 30, 1910. Said motion for new trial was acted on and overruled November 1, 1910, and the appellant was sentenced the same day.

However, on October 31, 1910—we find in the record—Dan M. Jackson, one of appellant's attorneys who represented appellant on the trial of the case, filed an affidavit wherein he says: "That he has good reason to believe, and does believe, and here alleges the fact to be, that Herman Springer, the defendant in the above styled and numbered cause, is of unsound mind and insane and respectfully moves the court to have the said defendant tried on the question of insanity as provided for in article 982, Code of Criminal Procedure." The state, by its district attorney, filed an opposition to this affidavit, claiming that "it was insufficient, under articles 982 and 983 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the reasons that the affidavit is on information and belief and does not make known to the court that defendant is insane; that the affidavit is by one of the attorneys of record of the defendant and sets out no good reason to believe that defendant has become...