Womack v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Womack v. State

274 S.W. 588, 101 Tex. Crim. 130, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 689

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 17, 1925

DocketNo. 9297.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 274 S.W. 588 (Womack 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

Womack v. State, 274 S.W. 588, 101 Tex. Crim. 130, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 689 (Tex. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

BERRY, Judge.

The appellant was convicted in the district court of San Patricio County for the offense of possessing liquor and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of one year.

The .record is very lengthy and there are many alleged errors presented by appellant. Many of these will doubtless not occur on another trial of the ease and we deem a detailed discussion of them unnecessary. There is, however, one matter which makes it imperative that this case be reversed, and that is the misconduct of the jury in receiving additional testimony after the jury had retired to consider its verdict. Appellant in his motion for a new trial properly alleges this misconduct and sets out in detail the additional testimony received by the jury.

By a proper bill of exception, the appellant shows that the court heard the question on affidavits presented and the bill further shows that there was no controversy on the part of the state as to the matters alleged in appellant’s motion for new trial, having occurred in the jury room. The effect of these affidavits is to show that one of the jurors presented matters vital to the state’s case as coming within the juror's own personal knowledge and that it was only after *131 the juror had made the personal statement as upon his own knowledge that a verdict of conviction was rendered against this appellant. In addition to this, it is manifest that one of the jurors offered statements before the jury impeaching one of the defendant’s most important witnesses for truth and veracity. These matters were, as above stated, not controverted by the state, and it occurs to us that they are of such importance-as to require a reversal of this case.

For the error of the court in refusing’ to grant appellant’s motion for a new trial because of the misconduct of the jury, it is our opinion that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BERRY, Judge.

The appellant was convicted in the district court of San Patricio County for the offense of possessing liquor and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of one year.

The .record is very lengthy and there are many alleged errors presented by appellant. Many of these will doubtless not occur on another trial of the ease and we deem a detailed discussion of them unnecessary. There is, however, one matter which makes it imperative that this case be reversed, and that is the misconduct of the jury in receiving additional testimony after the jury had retired to consider its verdict. Appellant in his motion for a new trial properly alleges this misconduct and sets out in detail the additional testimony received by the jury.

By a proper bill of exception, the appellant shows that the court heard the question on affidavits presented and the bill further shows that there was no controversy on the part of the state as to the matters alleged in appellant’s motion for new trial, having occurred in the jury room. The effect of these affidavits is to show that one of the jurors presented matters vital to the state’s case as coming within the juror's own personal knowledge and that it was only after *131 the juror had made the personal statement as upon his own knowledge that a verdict of conviction was rendered against this appellant. In addition to this, it is manifest that one of the jurors offered statements before the jury impeaching one of the defendant’s most important witnesses for truth and veracity. These matters were, as above stated, not controverted by the state, and it occurs to us that they are of such importance-as to require a reversal of this case.

For the error of the court in refusing’ to grant appellant’s motion for a new trial because of the misconduct of the jury, it is our opinion that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 S.W. 588, 101 Tex. Crim. 130, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/womack-v-state-texcrimapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack