Washburn v. State

Decision Date14 December 1892
Citation20 S.W. 715
PartiesWASHBURN v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from district court, Tyler county; W. H. FORD, Judge.

G. W. Washburn, having been convicted of murder, appeals. Reversed.

S. B. Cooper, for plaintiff in error. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree, and his punishment assessed at a term of 25 years in the penitentiary. One of the grounds of the motion for a new trial was, in substance, that defendant had not been accorded a fair and impartial trial, in that D. R. Pope, one of the jurors who tried the case, was not a qualified and competent juror, in that he was biased and prejudiced against defendant, although he qualified himself as a juror when examined on his voir dire. The defendant and his attorneys made oath that this bias and prejudice of the juror were unknown to them until after the trial and conviction. Subsequent to the trial the impugned juror remarked to Durham, another member of the jury, that he "knew too much about the case to render any other verdict than the one he did render; that he should have been a witness in the case, instead of a juror; that he saw too much of the difficulty at the time it occurred." To T. D. Scott the juror remarked that he "was surprised that he was not a witness in said cause, instead of a juror." To L. F. Chester he stated "that the defense about accident and threatening mob was all stuff or bosh; that he, the juror, was in Colmesniel the day of the alleged homicide, and knew better." The state produced the counter affidavit of the juror, to the effect that he had no prejudice against appellant; that he tried him on the evidence adduced, on the charge as given to the jury; and that he was not controlled in his action in trying the case "by anything he heard on the outside, or personally knew of said case prior to the trial of said cause;" but admits the statements imputed to him by Durham, and does not deny any of the statements shown to have been made by him to the other affiants. This court has well said: "A defendant in a criminal prosecution is entitled to a fair and impartial jury, and a verdict of conviction, however just, should be above suspicion as to its fairness and its entire compatibility with the just and pure administration of the law." Long v. State, 10 Tex. App. 186. As presented to us by the record, the verdict was not obtained by means of a fair and impartial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Levy
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • January 21, 1904
    ......343;. State v. Gonce, 87 Mo. 627; Willis v. People, 32 N.Y. 715; Fitzgerald v. People, 1. Colo. 56; McGuffey v. State, 17 Ga. 497; Cody v. State, 4 Miss. 27; State v. Taylor, 67 Mo. 358;. United States v. Upham, 2 Mont. 170; Hanks v. State, 21 Tex. 526; Washburn v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. Rep. 352, 20 S.W. 715.) The court erred in giving to the. jury of its own motion instruction No. 28, as follows, to. wit: "A defendant in a criminal action or proceeding to. which he is a party is not, without his consent, a competent. witness for or against himself. His ......
  • State v. Weeden
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 3, 1896
    ......E. Loafman had formed and expressed an opinion. before he was impaneled. State v. Taylor, 64 Mo. 361; State v. Burnside, 37 Mo. 347; State v. Wyatt, 50 Mo. 309; U.S. v. Fries, 3 Dall. 515;. State v. Hultz, 106 Mo. 48; State v. Gonce,. 87 Mo. 629; Graham v. State, 13 S.W. 1010; Washburn. v. State, 20 S.W. 715. . .          R. F. Walker, attorney general, and Morton Jourdan, assistant. attorney general, for the state. . .          (1). Defendant was formally arraigned. If he had not been, his. pleas of not guilty waived the necessity of arraignment. ......
  • Autry v. State, 21588.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • October 8, 1941
    ...117 S.W.2d 465; Davis v. State, 101 Tex.Cr.R. 352, 275 S.W. 1029; Wilson v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 175, 79 S.W.2d 852; Washburn v. State, 31 Tex.Cr.R. 352, 20 S.W. 715. Where the decision on a certain question necessarily turns upon evidence relating thereto particular cases are of little val......
  • Mitchell v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • June 26, 1896
    ...against a person. See Long v. State, 10 Tex. App. 186; Hanks v. State, 21 Tex. 526; Henrie v. State, 41 Tex. 573; Washburn v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. App. 352, 20 S. W. 715; Sewell v. State, 15 Tex. App. The views herein expressed do not accord with some of the views expressed in the opinion her......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT