Ex Parte Heptinstall

39 S.W.2d 75, 118 Tex. Crim. 160, 1931 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 598
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 29, 1931
DocketNo. 14404.
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 39 S.W.2d 75 (Ex Parte Heptinstall) 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
Ex Parte Heptinstall, 39 S.W.2d 75, 118 Tex. Crim. 160, 1931 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 598 (Tex. 1931).

Opinions

HAWKINS, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the district judge of the 42d Judicial District of Texas refusing to release relator under habeas corpus proceeding.

There was pending in the district court of Taylor county an indictment charging one Ed Bloss with rape upon Ethel Heptinstall. The case was called for trial on the 3rd day of February, 1931, a jury selected, the indictment read and the defendant’s plea of “not guilty” entered and the witnesses sworn. The state called to the witness stand the alleged injured female, the relator here. After giving her name and place of residence, she refused to testify to any material facts about which she was interrogated. She was asked by the trial judge if she understood the consequences of her refusal to testify and assured him that she did. She refused to answer material and pertinent questions propounded both by the court and the district attorney. She positively told the court that she would continue to refuse to answer, whereupon the court held her in contempt, and punished her by a fine of $100 and three days in jail.

On .the 9th day of February application was made for a writ of habeas corpus, which was issued and a hearing thereon was had the same day and relator remanded to the custody of the sheriff. The judgment of contempt and the committment issued thereunder by virtue of which the sheriff held relator were regular.1 There was no claim that the fine assessed, as part of the punishment, had been satisfied. No brief for *162 relator has been furnished and we have been unable to ascertain from the record any basis for her demand for release. She appears to have been in flagrant contempt of the court.

The judgment remanding relator is affirmed.

A/firmed.

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

Related

Ex Parte Daniels
722 S.W.2d 707 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Ex Parte Rogers
633 S.W.2d 666 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Cleveland v. State
508 S.W.2d 829 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 S.W.2d 75, 118 Tex. Crim. 160, 1931 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-heptinstall-texcrimapp-1931.