Camacho v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Camacho v. State

244 S.W.2d 823, 156 Tex. Crim. 551, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1693

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 21, 1951

DocketNo. 25461

StatusPublished

This text of 244 S.W.2d 823 (Camacho 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

Camacho v. State, 244 S.W.2d 823, 156 Tex. Crim. 551, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1693 (Tex. 1951).

Pincite

Opinions

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The conviction is for a second offense for driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three years in the penitentiary.

The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged. The sole bill of exception relates to the overruling of a challenge for cause to the juror Roy Haynes. The challenge was based upon Sec. 13 of Art. 616, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.

Haynes, on voir dire examination, stated that he had confidence in the peace officers of his county and did not believe they would arrest an innocent man, and that the fact that appellant was arrested caused him to believe that appellant was guilty. Assuming that such examination shows that the juror had formed an opinion or conclusion as to the guilt of appellant, nevertheless, the bill is deficient for the reason that it is not shown that the opinion was such as would influence his verdict. Sec. 13 of Art. 616, C.C.P., requires that the opinion or conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused be such as will influence the juror in his action in finding a verdict. The full examination of the juror is not set forth in the bill, and we are not advised as to whether the witness was examined in the manner set forth in Art. 616 (13), C.C.P. Apparently the trial court reached the conclusion from the entire examination that the juror was impartial and would render a fair verdict. The bill does not show reversible error in the overruling of the challenge for cause.

Finding no reversible error the judgment is affirmed.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The conviction is for a second offense for driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three years in the penitentiary.

The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged. The sole bill of exception relates to the overruling of a challenge for cause to the juror Roy Haynes. The challenge was based upon Sec. 13 of Art. 616, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.

Haynes, on voir dire examination, stated that he had confidence in the peace officers of his county and did not believe they would arrest an innocent man, and that the fact that appellant was arrested caused him to believe that appellant was guilty. Assuming that such examination shows that the juror had formed an opinion or conclusion as to the guilt of appellant, nevertheless, the bill is deficient for the reason that it is not shown that the opinion was such as would influence his verdict. Sec. 13 of Art. 616, C.C.P., requires that the opinion or conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused be such as will influence the juror in his action in finding a verdict. The full examination of the juror is not set forth in the bill, and we are not advised as to whether the witness was examined in the manner set forth in Art. 616 (13), C.C.P. Apparently the trial court reached the conclusion from the entire examination that the juror was impartial and would render a fair verdict. The bill does not show reversible error in the overruling of the challenge for cause.

Finding no reversible error the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 S.W.2d 823, 156 Tex. Crim. 551, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camacho-v-state-texcrimapp-1951.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack