Stockwell v. State, 28905
Decision Date | 10 April 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 28905,28905 |
Citation | 301 S.W.2d 669,164 Tex.Crim. 656 |
Parties | John Hunter STOCKWELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Richard C. Keene and James E. Barlow, San Antonio, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for robbery by assault, with three prior convictions of felonies less than capital alleged to enhance the punishment under Art. 63, V.A.P.C.; the punishment, life imprisonment.
In view of our disposition of the case a recitation of the facts is not deemed necessary, other than to state that the State's testimony shows that on or about the date alleged the injured party, M. E. Fred, who was manager of the Professional Pharmacy in the City of San Antonio, was assaulted and robbed of the sum of $100 in money and a quantity of narcotics. As a witness for the State, Fred identified the appellant as the man who assaulted and robbed him. Two other eitnesses called by the State, who were present in the pharmacy at the time of the robbery, testified that appellant looked like the man who committed the robbery but did not positively identify appellant as the man.
Proof was made by the State of the appellant's prior convictions as alleged in the indictment.
Bill of Exception No. 1 relates to the Court's action in overruling appellant's amended motion for new trial in which certain jury misconduct was alleged and in refusing to allow evidence to be offered thereon.
In the motion it was alleged as jury misconduct that certain jurors had read a newspaper article appearing in the San Antonio News on the evening of October 15, 1956, after they had been examined on voir dire examination, sent home for the evening by the Court and the Court announced that the peremptory challenges would be taken on the following morning.
The newspaper article was attached to the motion as Exhibit A, and made a part thereof, and related to the trial of appellant. Omitting certain portions thereof, the article read:
'Stockwell Jury Starts Forming.
It was further alleged in the motion that after the jury had retired to deliberate upon the case on certain juror asked the entire jury if they had read the newspaper article and several jurors answered in the affirmative.
The motion was supported by affidavit of the juror Maupin in which, omitting the formal parts, he stated:
The action of the Court in overruling the motion and refusing to allow evidence to be presented thereon constitutes reversible error.
One of the statutory grounds for a new trial in a felony case under Article 753, V.A.C.C.P., is 'where the jury, after having retired to deliberate upon a case, have received other testimony.'
In 31 Tex.Jur., Par. 48, page 241, it is stated:
'A new trial should be granted if, during their deliberations the jury had access to newspapers and considered an account therein of the case which was imperfect or incorrect, or an account which contained new evidence not introduced upon the trial.'
In the early case of Williams v. State, 33 Tex.Cr.R. 128, 25 S.W. 629, 630, 28 S.W. 958, in which jury misconduct was claimed because two of the jurors read newspaper accounts of the trial after they had retired to deliberate upon their verdict, it was said:
'While it is true that where a newspaper contains prejudicial reports of the trial, or comments on the case, or the persons or character of those connected therewith, (Walker's case [Walker v. State], 37 Tex. 380), or where it contains matter calculated to influence the verdict, (People v. Murray , 24 P. 666,) the verdict should be set aside, yet where there is nothing in the newspaper statement of the evidence calculated in any way to affect the rights of defendant, while it is not proper to admit it to the jury, still it should not vitiate the verdict.'
In Banner v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 153, 225 S.W.2d 975, 976, in passing upon a claim of jury misconduct because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Romero v. State
...417 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406, 350 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.Cr.App.1961); Stockwell v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656, 301 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Cr.App.1957); Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255, 247 S.W.2d 110 (Tex.Cr.App.1951), rehearing denied 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255, 248 S.......
-
Leonard v. State
...235 S.W.2d, at 176. 16.Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. 255, 247 S.W.2d 110 (1952). 17.Id., at 111. 18.Ibid. 19.Ibid. 20.164 Tex.Crim. 656, 301 S.W.2d 669, 671 (1957) (citing Peterson for the proposition that “[e]vidence as to such tests would have been inadmissible upon the trial on behalf......
-
Hart v. State
...546; Nichols v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 378 S.W.2d 335. See also Davis v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 456, 308 S.W.2d 880; Stockwell v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656, 301 S.W.2d 669; 23 Tex.Jur.2d, Sec. 402, p. 601. However, it appears that State's witness did not refer to or allude to any polygraph examin......
-
Lee v. State
...S.W.2d 335; Placker v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 406, 350 S.W.2d 546; Davis v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 456, 308 S.W.2d 880; Stockwell v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 656, 301 S.W.2d 669; Peterson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255, 247 S.W.2d 110, rehearing denied 157 Tex.Cr.R. 255, 248 S.W.2d In Paredes v. State......