Dibbles v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Dibbles v. State

231 S.W. 768, 89 Tex. Crim. 427, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 506

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 1, 1921

DocketNo. 6268.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 231 S.W. 768 (Dibbles 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

Dibbles v. State, 231 S.W. 768, 89 Tex. Crim. 427, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 506 (Tex. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge.

This appellant was convicted in the District Court of Hardin County of the offense of burglary, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for three years.

It appears from bill of exceptions No. 1 that after the testimony in the case had been introduced, the court below, with /the consent of the appellant, permitted the jury .to separate and go to their respective homes and there spend the night, none of them being accompanied by an officer. To this action of the court appellant took his bill of exceptions, which is approved by the trial court without any explanation whatever. This is in violation of the express inhibitions of Art. 745, Vernon’s C. C. P., which forbids the separation of the jury in a felony case in any event except the jurors so separated be in charge of an officer. This court held in Porter v. State, 1 Texas Crim. App., 394, that such separation was not allowable even by the consent of the accused and permission of the judge presiding, unless said jurors were in charge of an officer. So far as we know there has been no deviation from this holding down to the present. See Sterling v. State, 15 *428 Texas Crim. App., 249; Kelly v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 120. No sort of explanation of the fact of .such separation anywhere appears, nor was there even any effort on the part of the State to show no injury. Early v. State, 1 Texas Crim. App., 248; Burris v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 587.

For the error mentioned the judgment of conviction will be reversed and the cause remanded for another trial.

Reversed and remanded.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

This appellant was convicted in the District Court of Hardin County of the offense of burglary, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for three years.

It appears from bill of exceptions No. 1 that after the testimony in the case had been introduced, the court below, with /the consent of the appellant, permitted the jury .to separate and go to their respective homes and there spend the night, none of them being accompanied by an officer. To this action of the court appellant took his bill of exceptions, which is approved by the trial court without any explanation whatever. This is in violation of the express inhibitions of Art. 745, Vernon’s C. C. P., which forbids the separation of the jury in a felony case in any event except the jurors so separated be in charge of an officer. This court held in Porter v. State, 1 Texas Crim. App., 394, that such separation was not allowable even by the consent of the accused and permission of the judge presiding, unless said jurors were in charge of an officer. So far as we know there has been no deviation from this holding down to the present. See Sterling v. State, 15 *428 Texas Crim. App., 249; Kelly v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 120. No sort of explanation of the fact of .such separation anywhere appears, nor was there even any effort on the part of the State to show no injury. Early v. State, 1 Texas Crim. App., 248; Burris v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 587.

For the error mentioned the judgment of conviction will be reversed and the cause remanded for another trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 S.W. 768, 89 Tex. Crim. 427, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dibbles-v-state-texcrimapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack