Twiggs v. State
| Decision Date | 10 June 1903 |
| Citation | 75 S.W. 531 |
| Parties | TWIGGS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Ellis County; J. E. Dillard, Judge.
Frank Twiggs was convicted of crime, and appeals. Reversed.
Anderson & Anderson, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
There are some 10 assignments of perjury set out in the indictment, predicated upon the testimony of appellant before the grand jury. There are quite a number of contentions urged for reversal. Without going into these seriatim, we are of opinion the conviction cannot be sustained on the facts.
The grand jury were investigating a case of rape against Earnest Stone upon Annie Heury, a girl under 15 years of age. An attachment was issued for appellant, and he was carried by the officers before the grand jury. They were also investigating a case of adultery between appellant and Goldie Heury, a sister of Annie Heury, as well as another case against appellant for carrying a pistol. As one of the witnesses stated, while they were investigating the cases against Stone the cases of adultery with Goldie Heury and carrying a pistol were developed against appellant. He was next to the last witness before the grand jury on the evening of January 14th. The pistol case against appellant and rape case against Stone were returned on the 14th, and the adultery case against appellant on the following day, the 15th. Some of the witnesses were not certain whether the adultery case was returned against appellant on that evening, or on the morning of the 15th. The assistant county attorney, who was before the grand jury, investigating the matter, testified "that the information on which the indictment was returned against Stone for rape, and against Twiggs for carrying a pistol and adultery, grew out of the same investigation." Appellant was not warned in regard to the evidence which formed the basis of this prosecution. He was "not told of the matter under investigation, except as suggested by the questions asked him." The attachment was served upon appellant by Officer Forbes, and from that time he was either in the charge of this officer, or in the grand jury room, until after he had testified before that body, and immediately upon coming out of the grand jury room he was again taken in charge by the officer, and placed in jail the same evening on the capias for carrying the pistol. Defendant testified that when he made his appearance before the grand jury he was excited very much; that he had never been before a grand jury before, and had never been a witness in his life; that the second question asked him was as to his knowledge of Goldie and Annie...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sovereign Camp Woodmen of World v. Newsom
...draw for the premium, as he was insured's agent and not that of the sovereign camp. 22 Mo.App. 127; 137 Mass. 368; 24 F. 450; 31 Id. 62; 75 S.W. 531; 214 S.W. 583; 85 S.E. 827; 80 P. 375; Id. 1110; 106 Id. 328-330; 89 N.W. 773. See also 89 N.W. 773; 119 Id. 694; 135 S.W. 201; 168 Id. 1026; ......
-
Butterfield v. State
...of the Fifth Amendment in a perjury prosecution. We addressed a similar issue in an isolated case nearly 100 years ago. In Twiggs v. State, 75 S.W. 531 (1903), the defendant was convicted of perjury based on statements he made before the grand jury. Because he had not been informed that he ......
-
Maki v. State
... ... inquest by persons under arrest or suspected of crime is not ... admissible upon their subsequent trial for the crime then ... under investigation. Such testimony cannot be regarded as ... voluntary. (Tuttle v. People, 33 Colo. 243, 79 P ... 1035, 70 L. R. A. 33; Twiggs v. State, (Tex. Cr ... App.) 75 S.W. 531; State v. Spier, 86 N.C. 600; ... State v. Hdw. Co., 109 Mo. 118.) The early English ... cases denied the admissibility of such evidence although the ... party was not then charged with the crime. (Rex v. Lewis, ... Carr. & P. 161; Reg v. Owen, 9 id ... ...
-
Williams v. State
...before the grand jury (Thomas v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 178, 32 S. W. 771; Paris v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 82, 31 S. W. 855; Twiggs v. State, 75 S. W. 531), but did not apply to the reproduction of testimony given by the appellant upon the trial of his case in open court (Collins v. State, 39......