*1 permitted the confessions the defendants be- examine announcing ready for trial. fore authori- cited this no
Ón submission Coplon, ty supporting position. now cites He reversed, among U.S. reasons, case other be- 2d 629. That Fed. permitted Coplon certain see cause the defendant against government documentary evidence introduced always permitted, case at bar her. done, they before were introduced the confessions examine evidence. every point by appel- attempted to write on raised
haveWe given may this lant so that be assured court has case, cases, very attention. as it does all its best
Finding error, no the motion for reversible overruled. Ramirez
Delfino 7, 1951. No. 25187. March Rehearing 27, 1951. Denied June McWhorter, Hon. H.
Rankin, Kilgore Kilgore, Cherry, by M. Joe Rankin, Jr., Edinburg, for Blackburn, Austin,
George Attorney, P. the state. *2 MORRISON, twenty- malice; punishment, murder the
The offense is with years penitentiary. five in the appeal presented question contained in
The sole on this is Exception complaining appellants’ Bill of the failure of No. jury the court hear of of to evidence misconduct.
Appellant’s sup- and amended for new trial motion by ported only appellant’s affidavit that the stated therein facts true, Castilla, juror were set forth an a dur- one ing trial, separated jurors the from his fellow and conversed one Barrera who was a member hearing motion, ap- When court convened a the on said pellant orally information, pro- stated his source of offered to expected duce his prove witness and stated what he to said witness. testimony,
The permitted ap- to refused hear the pellant to purpose dictate the into record for of the his bill exception expected prove. of what he to distinguished This Vyvial State, case is to be from
Tex. 264, 83; Cr. R. 10 S.W. 2d Toms v. 174; Moore
232 S.W. 2d in that: (1) alleged the misconduct is not to have occurred within jury room, the normally alone, by juror which could known a necessarily hearsay therefore his at- torney.
(2) upon belief, the affidavit is not information and but is being sworn true and correct. alleged
We hold that where outside the occurred jury room, the jurors, which could be known other than to those juror the affidavit requi- of a or officer in not a site of the provided motion for new trial the same sworn other than on information and belief.
When the prepared his for new trial and motion when he made of exception, his bill it him was incumbent juror He did show the show separated from the the had
Castilla himself balance to the Barrera as the came back a conversation with one lunch. courthouse requi- following plead the essential or to show
He failed to injury: presumption of of a sites jury, and was not officer Barrera
1. that was not 2. that court. presence, proposed failed that in his noted It will be *3 not a member of the was that Barrera Judge Hawkins, in Holder v. on motion 613, must held that S.W. 2d presumption negative in order of the above each injury. appel- is shown because of that no error
We have concluded prove a of facts would plead or state failure to lant’s give presumption rise to appellant’s logi- impressed particularly was
This court carefully brief, that in we remain convinced drawn cal and courts, new our motions for expedite the order to business specific. must cases be in Judgment affirmed. of the trial court is rehearing. appellant’s motion for
ON DAVIDSON, rehearing, appellant the two motion for insists essentially necessary in to authorize order
elements we held to be allege prove— or injury, he failed jury” is, Officer in of the “that Barrera was not an permission “that not Court,” only presence in were matters not with- of the knowledge judicial of the trial court in the actual but also proof facts was neces- neither nor of such therefore sary. words, appellant that the trial court knew In other insists officer in Barrera was in knew conversation was or was also whether the allega- hence neither nor presence or with his independently necessary made. of such facts tion position would be overrule the appellant’s To sustain holding in Holder v. support thereof. This we are un-
and authorities there cited willing to do. rehearing is overruled.
The motion for
Opinion approved the court. Threadgill E.
No. 25356. June 1951. Snell, Jr.,
Hon. John
Spurgeon Bell, Houston,
George P. Blackburn, Attorney, Austin, for the state. DAVIDSON, Judge. City
South Main Street of Houston runs north and south, paved portion lanes; consists of four dirt shoulders extend pavement from the side of the for a distance slope into a ditch. On the west side of said street and in thereof, appellant the ten thousand block parked had driven and two forty-two semi-trailers. One was stationed feet and the other, thirty-five edge feet pavement and on portion right-of-way where the sloped shoulders trailers, appellant into the ditch. From engaged these selling fireworks. stopping The drivers of automobiles their cars along making such purchases street and of fireworks dangerous caused a traffic hazard times, according at