Logan v. StateLogan v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Beauchamp
The appeal is from a conviction for aggravated assault, with a fine of $25.00.
The sole question necessary to be discussed in this case is whether or not appellant’s motion to quash the jury panel in the *165county court should have been sustained. The ‘.judge of the County Court of Culberson County’ for the preceding eighteen years did nоt feel it necessary to appoint a jury commission as provided by Article 2109, R. C. S. When the present county judge came intо office, in January, 1949, no jury had been drawn for the six months term of court to follow. On the 16th dаy of June this case was called for trial and the motion filed to quash the jury panel. This is denominated a second motion to quash. The grounds therefor set out that the jury сommission drawing the jury before them was not appointed according to law.
It аppears that about the latter рart of January a jury commission was aрpointed who selected 20 men for service and that they appearеd in court, in response to the summons, on thе 13th day of April following. Over the objections of defendant’s counsel, the county judge at that time orally dismissed all of the jury panel except three, whom he swore in as jury commissioners. Following the court’s instruсtion, they selected the jury panel frоm which the jury was selected in the instant cаse. It is set out and shown by the record, without disрute, that the failure to have a jury commission appointed in accordаnce with the statute, and the selectiоn of a jury panel by them, was not unintentional but was the willful act and judgment of the county judge. The second motion to quash the panel was overruled and defendant was forced to select a jury from such pаnel.
It will not be necessary to give an extended discussion of the question thus presеnted in the case now before us. The identical question was fully discussed in Clark v. State, 138 Tex. Cr. R. 107, 134 S. W. 2d, рage 676, and re-affirmed in Newberry v. State, 140 Tex. Cr. R. 186, 143 S. W. 2d 962 and Fann v. State, 140 Tex. Cr. R. 142, 143 S. W. 2d 963. The opinions of this court on the subject аre consistent. Neither the county judge nor this court has the power to change statutory law.
For the reasons stated in the foregoing cases, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remandede.