Canales v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Canales v. State

211 S.W.2d 950, 152 Tex. Crim. 198, 1948 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1257

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 26, 1948

DocketNo. 24052.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 211 S.W.2d 950 (Canales 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

Canales v. State, 211 S.W.2d 950, 152 Tex. Crim. 198, 1948 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1257 (Tex. 1948).

Pincite

Opinions

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a fine of $50.00 upon his conviction for failure to stop and render aid to parties with whom his car collided.

It is difficult to understand why the trial judge would overrule the motion for a new trial in this case. The State’s Attorney has confessed error which is plainly shown by the record.

Appellant did not testify. When the jury retired to consider the verdict they discussed this fact and considered it as a circumstance against him, contrary to the provisions of Article 710, Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P., as interpreted by many decisions of the Court annotated under said Article (Note 44). See also Article 753, Sec. 8, Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P. and authorities cited thereunder, as well as Stewart v. State, 206 S. W. (2d) 88.

The law which permits the judge to discuss the failure of a defendant to testify, in his charge, at the same time forbids the prosecution to refer to such failure, or the jury to consider it as a circumstance against him. It may appear to be inconsistent, but it is the law, passed by the legislature, which this Court and all trial courts should respect. Under the showing made, with the admitted fact that the jury did discuss the appellant’s failure to testify in his own bfehalf and considered it as a circumstance against him, the motion for a new trial should have been granted.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a fine of $50.00 upon his conviction for failure to stop and render aid to parties with whom his car collided.

It is difficult to understand why the trial judge would overrule the motion for a new trial in this case. The State’s Attorney has confessed error which is plainly shown by the record.

Appellant did not testify. When the jury retired to consider the verdict they discussed this fact and considered it as a circumstance against him, contrary to the provisions of Article 710, Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P., as interpreted by many decisions of the Court annotated under said Article (Note 44). See also Article 753, Sec. 8, Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P. and authorities cited thereunder, as well as Stewart v. State, 206 S. W. (2d) 88.

The law which permits the judge to discuss the failure of a defendant to testify, in his charge, at the same time forbids the prosecution to refer to such failure, or the jury to consider it as a circumstance against him. It may appear to be inconsistent, but it is the law, passed by the legislature, which this Court and all trial courts should respect. Under the showing made, with the admitted fact that the jury did discuss the appellant’s failure to testify in his own bfehalf and considered it as a circumstance against him, the motion for a new trial should have been granted.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 S.W.2d 950, 152 Tex. Crim. 198, 1948 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canales-v-state-texcrimapp-1948.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack