Meadows v. State

160 S.W.2d 523, 143 Tex. Crim. 611, 1942 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 180
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 1, 1942
DocketNo. 22031.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 160 S.W.2d 523 (Meadows 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
Meadows v. State, 160 S.W.2d 523, 143 Tex. Crim. 611, 1942 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 180 (Tex. 1942).

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The unlawful sale of whiskey in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $200.00.

The facts show, without dispute, that appellant sold, to an Inspector of the Texas Liquor Control Board, a pint of whiskey, in McCulloch County, a dry area within the meaning of the Texas Liquor Control Act.

It is insisted that members of the jury panel from which . the jury in this case was selected heard the evidence or were present upon a former trial of this case, and were, therefore, disqualified from serving as jurors upon the instant trial. The bill of exception presenting this question affirmatively reflects that the jurors selected to try this case stated that they had no opinion in the cause and were not in any manner biased *612 in favor of or prejudiced' against the áppellánt. The mere fact that a juror has heard the evidence in a former trial does not disqualify him from serving as a juror upon a subsequent trial of the same case. It is only when such a" juror has formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused that he is disqualified to sit in the case. Sec. 13 of Art. 616, Vernon’s Annot. Code of Criminal Procedure; Pierson v. State, 17 S. W. 468, 21 Tex. App. 14; Parchman v. State, 2 Tex. App. 228; Thompson v. State, 19 Tex. App. 593.

The record failing to reflect■ that any member of the jury which convicted the appellant was disqualified under the rule stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and. approved by the Court.

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

Related

Love v. State
730 S.W.2d 385 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
State v. Harper
430 So. 2d 627 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 S.W.2d 523, 143 Tex. Crim. 611, 1942 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meadows-v-state-texcrimapp-1942.