*1 44 jurors
admitted until it was determined who he was. While should not personal experiences during relate their their delibera- upon jury, tion every it is during not statement made their requires deliberations reversal the case. In Collier v. 164 Tex. Cr. R. 297 S. W. 2d this court said: juror’s “A during jury’s deliberation, statement require reversal, should be such that reason and common sense can see it was harmful to the accused. v. Howard Cr. R. 55 S. perceive W. 2d 1048.” Under the record no we injury to appellant by reason of such statement of the juror. It undisputed witness, admitted the Hall, into home without identifying his his himself. The con- upon dition upon may which Hall have been bearing admitted had no
the issue possession marijuana cigarettes. Futhermore the record does not show that Negro. was a In overruling the motion for new trial the court did not err. judgement is affirmed. August
Charles Amos v. State 31,202. January 6, State’s
WOODLEY, Judge, dissented. Shannon,
Joe Worth, Fort Doug Crouch, Criminal Attorney, by District Brady, John A. Assistant Criminal Attorney, District Worth, Fort and Leon for the state. *2 MORRISON, Presiding Judge. thirty theft; the misdemeanor
days jail. in pairs appellant
The state’s that stole nine evidence shows of supermarket. women’s hose from a
Appellant testify any in his own did not offer evidence or County county except judgment behalf Tarrant a of the court of finding person dated mind him to be a of unsound Asylum” Falls, committing and him to the “Lunatic at Wichita plus proof in further order that the docket said case reflected no by the in of court. The state introduced evidence a certificate Hospital superintendent the dated of the Falls State Wichita August 1, being 1942, discharging appellant “without as psychosis.” proof
No further was offered. charged jury The follows: “You are further court the as ordinarily every person presumed sane is to be instructed that evidence, contrary by preponderance until the is shown a provide discharge patient who our the of statutes that a mentally incompetent has the been found to terminates be presumption mentally incompetent.” he that is
Among charges by the appellant’s requested which were jury court the that an unvacated refused was one which told judgment evidence, lunacy, in a introduced creates of when presumption upon that was insane and the burden shifts contrary. prove
the state to the Unquestionably prior the was the law to enactment this V.A.R.C.S.) the (Art. 5547-81, in 1957. Mental Health Code Rep. Davidson v. Tex. 2d 74. Cr. S.W. presumption deprives Since the above statute the accused of and ex evidence, alters it be as the rules of would unconstitutional post discharge applied if dated before the effective facto to a date the act. Holt v. 363. failing We have the trial court erred in concluded
give requested charge. judgment the cause is remanded. is reversed and WOODLEY, Judge (dissenting). January effective
The Texas Mental Health Code became year theft 1958. The was committed more than later. may successfully agree I attack the cannot offense, statute, post in committed as effect when he ex facto and unconstitutional. respectfully
I dissent. *3 Compton
James H. v. State 31,051. November Appeal January On Motion to Reinstate Richter, Hondo, Francis C.
Leon for the state. WOODLEY, Judge. years. rape; five 9, 1959,
On new motion for trial was over- ruled, pronounced, appeal sentence was given. notice