Ex Parte Sanchez

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ex Parte Sanchez

213 S.W. 271, 85 Tex. Crim. 380, 1919 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 228

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 4, 1919

DocketNo. 5458.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 S.W. 271 (Ex Parte Sanchez) 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 Sanchez, 213 S.W. 271, 85 Tex. Crim. 380, 1919 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 228 (Tex. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

MORROW, Judge.

Relators have made application for a writ of habeas corpus to this court charging in substance that they were adjudged guilty of contempt of court for refusal to answer questions propounded to them by the grand jury of Dallas County. In their sworn petition they make the following statement:

“Tour petitioners show that they were arrested without warrant on the 15th day of May, 1919, and placed in jail at Dallas County. That thereafter, on the morning of the 16th day of May, 1919, while under arrest, they were carried before the Grand Jury of Dallas County and sworn as witnesses. That when they were called upon to testify before the grand jury they each plead their privileges as a witness and respectfully told the grand jury that they understood that they were defendants in the matter inquired about, and that they declined to make a statement, as any statement they might make might incriminate themselves respectively.”

*381 If this statement is true in substance the petitioners should not have been compelled to give their testimony before the grand jury. Ex parte Wilson, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 630; Ex parte Merrell, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 193; Ex parte Hughes, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 82; Ex parte Park, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 590; Wilson v. State, 41 Texas Crim. Rep., 115. If the truth of it should be controverted, this court, being one organized and maintained in the main for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, is not in a.position to determine controverted questions of fact. It is ordered that the application be granted; that the relators be each discharged from the order holding them for contempt upon the executiion of a bond in the sum of $100 conditioned according to law and securing their attendance upon Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas County, Texas, to abide its order, and that said writ be returned to and heard by said court.

Relators discharged conditionally.

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

MORROW, Judge.

Relators have made application for a writ of habeas corpus to this court charging in substance that they were adjudged guilty of contempt of court for refusal to answer questions propounded to them by the grand jury of Dallas County. In their sworn petition they make the following statement:

“Tour petitioners show that they were arrested without warrant on the 15th day of May, 1919, and placed in jail at Dallas County. That thereafter, on the morning of the 16th day of May, 1919, while under arrest, they were carried before the Grand Jury of Dallas County and sworn as witnesses. That when they were called upon to testify before the grand jury they each plead their privileges as a witness and respectfully told the grand jury that they understood that they were defendants in the matter inquired about, and that they declined to make a statement, as any statement they might make might incriminate themselves respectively.”

*381 If this statement is true in substance the petitioners should not have been compelled to give their testimony before the grand jury. Ex parte Wilson, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 630; Ex parte Merrell, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 193; Ex parte Hughes, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 82; Ex parte Park, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 590; Wilson v. State, 41 Texas Crim. Rep., 115. If the truth of it should be controverted, this court, being one organized and maintained in the main for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, is not in a.position to determine controverted questions of fact. It is ordered that the application be granted; that the relators be each discharged from the order holding them for contempt upon the executiion of a bond in the sum of $100 conditioned according to law and securing their attendance upon Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas County, Texas, to abide its order, and that said writ be returned to and heard by said court.

Relators discharged conditionally.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 S.W. 271, 85 Tex. Crim. 380, 1919 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-sanchez-texcrimapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack