Brogden v. State

80 S.W. 378, 47 Tex. Crim. 121, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 241
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 13, 1904
DocketNo. 2723.
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 80 S.W. 378 (Brogden v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brogden v. State, 80 S.W. 378, 47 Tex. Crim. 121, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 241 (Tex. 1904).

Opinion

HEHDERSOH, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of exhibiting a gaming table and bank for the purpose of gaming, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25 and ten days confinement in the county jail; hence this appeal.

On the trial appellant objected to the deputy sheriff drawing the jury for the trial of appellant from the box, and making lists of the same for the use of the State and defendant. Articles 682 and 683, Code of Criminal Procedure, provide that this duty shall be performed by the county clerk. There is no provision authorizing it to be done by the sheriff or his deputies. Evidently this was enacted for the purpose of securing a fair and impartial jury, and we know of no authority on the part of the judge to set aside this plain provision of the statute.

Appellant complains of the charge of the court particularly because it instructed the jury that it was not necessary for the State to show that any betting was done at the bank or table. This was in accordance with the statute; it being held only necessary that the table or bank be exhibited for the purpose of gaming. The court sufficiently charged on this matter, and besides gave a requested charge on the subject.

Appellant further contends that the judgment should be reversed because the jury discussed the failure of defendant to testify before any verdict was rendered. This question was presented in the motion for new trial, and was supported by the affidavits of two of the jurors; and we do not find anywhere in the record, that this was controverted by the *122 State. A new trial should have been granted on this ground. For the • errors discussed, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hightower v. State
156 S.W.2d 327 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Broaddus v. State
150 S.W.2d 247 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1941)
State v. Langford
144 S.W.2d 448 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1940)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1940
Houghton v. Fox
93 S.W.2d 781 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1936)
Jones v. Woodwarth
124 N.W. 844 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 S.W. 378, 47 Tex. Crim. 121, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brogden-v-state-texcrimapp-1904.