Wilson v. State

• Decision Date: 30 March 1910
• Parties: WILSON v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

127 S.W. 548

WILSON v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 30, 1910.

Rehearing Denied April 19, 1910.

Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; E. R. Campbell, Judge.

Bully Wilson was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Woods & Graham, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of burglary; his punishment being assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.

1. When the case was called for trial, appellant filed a plea setting up insanity at the time of the commission of the offense, and asked that that issue be first tried. A jury was impaneled, and some of the testimony introduced. That issue was then withdrawn from the jury and tried under the general plea of not guilty along with the other issues submitted to the jury. The issue of insanity at the time of the commission of the offense was submitted by the court in the charge. There was considerable evidence introduced in regard to insanity. The court, among other things, qualifying the bill of exceptions reserved to the withdrawal of the special issue before the jury and submitting it with the general issues, states that the same jury which was impaneled to try the special issue of insanity tried the entire case, and issue of insanity was submitted to the jury in the charge. We are of opinion that this does not present a matter for which this judgment should be reversed. The court states that his action in the matter was based upon the authority of Chase v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 560, 55 S. W. 833. The opinion in the Chase Case shows that appellant in that case had been found insane under a verdict of the jury, and when placed upon trial, on the general issue, he pleaded that under the former finding of the jury he was insane, and could not be placed upon final trial until that judgment had been set aside by the proper court. This court held the action of the trial court in that case was correct. We see no practical difference between the question in that case and that here urged. We refer to the reasoning of Judge Henderson in the Chase Case, supra, without further comment, and hold it decisive of the question here presented.

2. Instructing the jury in regard to insanity, the court informed them that the insanity must be clearly proved in order to authorize the jury to find that question in favor of appellant. There are quite a number of authorities in Texas which have laid down this...