*1 recognizance bond, appeal an is in or statute for either appearance bond. the nature of sustained, appeal
The motion is dismissed. Victoriano Salazar v. The State. January
No. 23272. Delivered Rehearing Denied April HAWKINS, Presiding dissenting. Judge, *2 The the case. states Antonio,
M. Gonzales, appellant. C. of San Attorney, Goens, Austin, Ernest S. State’s of for the State. Judge. BEAUCHAMP, charge a appeal is on
The from a sentence of death of murder. place City Brownsville, The homicide in the of took County. changed court the Cameron The of his own motion venue County, the to of Bee where the trial was had on June 6, 1945. prowler
The about the residence E. B. neighbor reported Griffin. A discovered his and the police department. policemen, matter to the Two Alfred Easier Villarreal, and J. J. went to the home of Griffin and discovered appellant. ground Shots were heard. Easier to fell and neighboring Villareal went house call for an ambulance. hearing Mr. Griffin testified that the shots he turned lights yard lying in the and on discovered Easier on ground. preceded Villarreal testified that Easier in- him the
vestigation, flashlight pistol with a in his left hand and a in his .right; go house; that saw man around the corner Captain when Easier commanded him to halt he fired at .that Captain, immediately juncture, who fell knees. At this shooting. both Villarreal and Easier started The wounded of- conveyed ficer hospital, to the where he died soon after his arrival body there. An examination of his revealed the fact abdomen; lodged that he shot the bullet near spine attending where it physician. his proved was removed It bullet, pistol
to be .45 caliber fired found under home, the Griffin where was found wounded and un- able to walk.
Appellant testify did not or oifer an affirmative defense. Appellant’s complaint first relates court’s action in overruling quash ground his motion the indictment ón the jury commissioners, prospective in the' thé selection of
.'(cid:127)262 nationality against Mexican grand jurors, discriminated intentionally designedly, member, they he was a which grand as a any Mexican deliberately select declined to voters qualified notwithstanding number were a there County of Cameron residents who were of Mexican extraction service; the action grand jury perform qualified in contravention jury as aforesaid commissioners States of the United Amendment Constitution
Fourteenth law. protection of the therefore, equal was, denial of (cid:127) nationality, against complaint made of discrimination The is grand as the race people are of the same The Mexican race. our discussion (cid:127)jurors. question presented see no of the United to the Constitution the Fourteenth Amendment dealing with upon by appellant, relied and the (cid:127)States decisions *3 against discrimination race. foregoing, in raised, to the question similar
A further was after its special quash venire called the an effort the to County. taken as to this bill. The same view is to Bee .transfer disposition appeal, Bill of Ex- made of this Because of the say that the ception further than to No. 3 need not be discussed testimony sustaining objection the was in the to court correct volunteered. Edwards, Exception 4 that a venire-
Bill of No. reflects S. G. man, examination, by saying disqualified that it himself part justify require on the of accused to would more evidence the if he where the was an officer than it would a defense deceased private The court refused to sustain the were citizen. last chal- to this and exercised his lenge Spiek- on list A. on him. The next venireman- the was H. erman, justice peace deputy of and who had served as the excused, Appellant explaining sheriff. asked that he be his ob- ground long jection peace him that had to on the he been a of- unconsciously and that he influenced as ficer be rendering verdict, his because of the fact that the deceased officer, performance duty. an killed in the of his opinion plausible complaint In our this was a reason for the made, error even under the line of and constituted authorities majority opinion State, prior v. to the 178 S. W. Wolfe Appellant required had been exhaust a chal- Edwards, excused, should have on and was there- by accept Spiekerman, objectionable juror. who was an forced
263 given by testimony Exception Bill of to the No. relates Jordan, State, that he Truett present who said the witness body de of the the
when bullet was taken the ; passing took in ceased that he saw the the bullet course which through body; pierced three the intestines times that it lodged against spine; lying spine; “it kind by position”; a cross-wise the wound inflicted thus Appellant the bullet cause the death of the deceased: objected testimony ground to this on the witness was qualified express opinion death an as the cause deceased. We see no merit in this bill. The witness was present by physician. when the bullet was extracted He saw damage spine, which it intestines also saw expired that the deceased had and was able therefore express as to the cause death. This is in accord Evidence, with the announcement (11th in Wharton’s Criminal Ed.) 2, 1764, p. Vol. sec. where the author states the rule to be as follows: ing expert may, “One iswho not an after describ give wound, it caused death.” also See Tanner v. E. Ga. 135 S.
By Exception Bill of complains No. 6 he following of the closing remarks argument District in his jury: jury, “Gentlemen had it not been for the fact that de- gun jammed, fendant’s defendant would have killed all the present officers on the scene.”
Appellant objected argument requested the court jury disregard to instruct the same. The court in- jury struct as follows: any “If the District draws deduction from the evi- . your minds, you
dence that is .to unreasonable will not consider any purpose.” it for
There was evidence introduced to the effect that found, policeman gun had shot one it and that when his jammed operate. and would not It is most certain gun jammed policeman, was not it when he shot the but jammed operate and ceased- to he had after fired the fatal shot. Therefore, proven, under the facts circumstances it seems argument us that the was not an deduction from unreasonable C., 370; p. evidence. See Ann. Branch’s Tex. P. Sec. State, also 125 Tex. Morris v. Cr. R. 158. trial judgment out, pointed
For the error herein remanded. and the cause court is reversed rehearing. motion for ON state’s Judge. GRAVES, rehearing herein, and we for a filed a motion The State has meaning of the majority the full fear it has failed to catch 178 S. W. v. case of Wolfe In reversed. authority cause which this fail- erred trial court case it was admitted Wolfe ing preferred challenge to a certain for cause to sustain a grand jury in- grand juror on the as a served ground for a chair Wolfe, a valid This was dicted the accused. such
lenge cause, upon failure to sustain the trial court’s for challenge, exercise one attorney was caused valid Wolfe’s re- challenges, have been peremptory whereas he should his grand his chal- juror means of lieved of the of such peremptory chal- Upon an exhaustion for cause. desire, lenges, preferred juror whom he did a further he was grant peremp- requested him further and he the trial court to challenge him in tory place taken from to take the the one challenge ex-grand juror. causing Had peremptorily him to challenge, peremptory him this one he thus had restored to juror him. who was forced would not have taken the last that, wrongfully took from him one held since the court We peremptory given
challenge, peremp- back one he should have tory challenge, required and should not have the accused objectionable. why cause such last show justice of say that who has do not mean to one subject sheriff, peace, deputy that reason is or a challenge cause; say, previous we mean to service do weight possible juror of a as an officer have some with desiring challenge, exercise a -accused when given. necessary which is one for which no reason is to be wrong- merely reiterate that since the trial court We can fully away one of his chal- took this lenges, appellant peremptorily was entitled to the last *5 objections. Appellant juror upon forced him over his should have thing away him, taken had returned to him the full not only. part thereof a hold, hold, do not intend to because a not We officer, peace a juror disquali
prospective has been such a. chal sitting juror a the doctrine fied him from as cause; recognize that, an accused is where we do but charged officer, killing doubtless peace with the unlawful of a - peace officer preferred juror as served Tact weight upon exercise haye some when accused is called challenge juror. comes Therein on such offered present appellant im the crux case. Had the not been challenges, properly deprived of this one of his juror could have himself of the this last relieved upon him, objectionable, disqualified. forced who not juror cause, Had the this been released under a arisen, subject situation would not to such but he was have challenge; improperly and had not de been prived peremptory challenges, one would a position havé to have caused such last to stand aside. original we were opinion herein, think correct in our
and the motion of the will State therefore be overruled. rehearing.
ON STATE’Smotion for HAWKINS, Presiding Judge (dissenting). The reversing State insists that we erred in judgment grounds conviction original opinion. stated in our
The argument prosecuted District strong the case has filed support of the many State’s motion in which au- thorities are cited and reviewed. These authorities are interest- ing, but do not majority accord with in Wolfe v. dissenting S. W. The present of the writer in clearly expresses his views then and now. Washington
Willie v. The State. April 3,
No. 23316. Delivered