Mendoza v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Mendoza v. State

442 S.W.2d 690, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1195

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJuly 9, 1969

DocketNo. 42214

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 442 S.W.2d 690 (Mendoza 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

Mendoza v. State, 442 S.W.2d 690, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1195 (Tex. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

[691]*691OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

The conviction is for assault with intent to rob; the punishment, six years.

The record does not contain a transcription of the court reporter’s notes for the guilt or penalty stages of the trial.

In the sole ground of error, complaint is made that some members of the jury had previously read a newspaper article and mentioned it at the penalty stage of the trial. The article contained a statement that a co-defendant of appellant had been convicted and was assessed a penalty of six years. When the jury brought in the verdict of the penalty, appellant asked to poll the jury and questioned members of the jury about the newspaper article.¹ During this procedure the jurors were not sworn as witnesses. There was no affidavit of a juror or anyone who was in a position to know the facts. Absent such an affidavit, the motion for new trial based on jury misconduct is insufficient as a pleading. Walker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 440 S.W.2d 653. There was no showing under oath from anyone as to why such affidavit was not attached. See Perbetsky v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 429 S.W.2d 471; Kizzee v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 191, 312 S.W.2d 661; and Prince v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R., 254 S.W.2d 1006.

Even if the motion for new trial had been sufficient as a pleading, and the un-sworn statements made by the jurors were considered as evidence on the motion for new trial, no reversible error would be shown, because the facts adduced at the trial are not a part of the record and without such it cannot be ascertained whether there was jury misconduct as alleged. 5 Tex.Jur.2d, Sec. 167, p. 265; Jones v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 365 S.W.2d 800; Dennehy v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 574, 31 S.W.2d 639.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

[691]*691OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

The conviction is for assault with intent to rob; the punishment, six years.

The record does not contain a transcription of the court reporter’s notes for the guilt or penalty stages of the trial.

In the sole ground of error, complaint is made that some members of the jury had previously read a newspaper article and mentioned it at the penalty stage of the trial. The article contained a statement that a co-defendant of appellant had been convicted and was assessed a penalty of six years. When the jury brought in the verdict of the penalty, appellant asked to poll the jury and questioned members of the jury about the newspaper article.¹ During this procedure the jurors were not sworn as witnesses. There was no affidavit of a juror or anyone who was in a position to know the facts. Absent such an affidavit, the motion for new trial based on jury misconduct is insufficient as a pleading. Walker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 440 S.W.2d 653. There was no showing under oath from anyone as to why such affidavit was not attached. See Perbetsky v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 429 S.W.2d 471; Kizzee v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 191, 312 S.W.2d 661; and Prince v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R., 254 S.W.2d 1006.

Even if the motion for new trial had been sufficient as a pleading, and the un-sworn statements made by the jurors were considered as evidence on the motion for new trial, no reversible error would be shown, because the facts adduced at the trial are not a part of the record and without such it cannot be ascertained whether there was jury misconduct as alleged. 5 Tex.Jur.2d, Sec. 167, p. 265; Jones v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 365 S.W.2d 800; Dennehy v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 574, 31 S.W.2d 639.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 S.W.2d 690, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendoza-v-state-texcrimapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack