Dunn v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Dunn v. State

224 S.W. 893, 88 Tex. Crim. 21, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 327

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 20, 1920

DocketNo. 5869.

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 224 S.W. 893 (Dunn 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

Dunn v. State, 224 S.W. 893, 88 Tex. Crim. 21, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 327 (Tex. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder and given twenty-five years in the penitentiary.

A bill of exceptions discloses that after the jury had been empaneled and the trial had proceeded for some time, one of the jurors was excused with the consent of the defendant, and the case thereafter went to its final conclusion with only eleven jurors. As thus constituted, a verdict was rendered, and all the proceedings had up to the rendition of the verdict, including the verdict itself, before the eleven jurors. This constitutes fatal error and necessitates a reversal. The question has been often before the court, and a number of opinions have been written, all to the same effect, that a jury thus trying a ease is not a legal or constitutional jury, and, therefore, incapable of trying a party, and it is immaterial that the defendant waives his right to be tried by twelve jurors and consented to be tried by eleven. Without discussing the matter we refer to cases in point which review the identical question, all holding that such verdict cannot stand: Jones v. State, 52 Texas Crim, Rep., 303; Stell v. State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 59; Lott v. State, 18 Texas Crim. App., 627; Jester v. State, 26 Texas Crim. App., 369; Mc Campbell v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 607; Ex parte Reynolds, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 437, 34 S. W. Rep., 120; Ex parte Ogle, 61 S. W. Rep., 122. These cases have discussed the matter on both statutory and constitutional grounds. The clauses of the law, both constitutional and statutory, are mentioned and the reasons are quoted and discussed. All of the decisions reach the conclusion that a jury must consist of twelve jurors, and that defendant cannot waive his right to be tried by a jury of twelve men. In fact, the statute provides that defendant may waive any right except a trial by jury. A jury, by the terms of the Constitution. consists of twelve men. The defendant cannot waive this.

*23 There are some other questions suggested, but these matters may not arise as set forth in the record upon another trial and are not 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

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder and given twenty-five years in the penitentiary.

A bill of exceptions discloses that after the jury had been empaneled and the trial had proceeded for some time, one of the jurors was excused with the consent of the defendant, and the case thereafter went to its final conclusion with only eleven jurors. As thus constituted, a verdict was rendered, and all the proceedings had up to the rendition of the verdict, including the verdict itself, before the eleven jurors. This constitutes fatal error and necessitates a reversal. The question has been often before the court, and a number of opinions have been written, all to the same effect, that a jury thus trying a ease is not a legal or constitutional jury, and, therefore, incapable of trying a party, and it is immaterial that the defendant waives his right to be tried by twelve jurors and consented to be tried by eleven. Without discussing the matter we refer to cases in point which review the identical question, all holding that such verdict cannot stand: Jones v. State, 52 Texas Crim, Rep., 303; Stell v. State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 59; Lott v. State, 18 Texas Crim. App., 627; Jester v. State, 26 Texas Crim. App., 369; Mc Campbell v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 607; Ex parte Reynolds, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 437, 34 S. W. Rep., 120; Ex parte Ogle, 61 S. W. Rep., 122. These cases have discussed the matter on both statutory and constitutional grounds. The clauses of the law, both constitutional and statutory, are mentioned and the reasons are quoted and discussed. All of the decisions reach the conclusion that a jury must consist of twelve jurors, and that defendant cannot waive his right to be tried by a jury of twelve men. In fact, the statute provides that defendant may waive any right except a trial by jury. A jury, by the terms of the Constitution. consists of twelve men. The defendant cannot waive this.

*23 There are some other questions suggested, but these matters may not arise as set forth in the record upon another trial and are not discussed.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 S.W. 893, 88 Tex. Crim. 21, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-state-texcrimapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack