Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

154 Tex. Crim. 275

226 S.W.2d 853

Beets v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided January 18, 1950

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1950-01-18

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1975

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““ ‘A bare allusion in the jury room to defendant’s failure to testify when immediately suppressed will not of itself cause the judgment of conviction to be set aside.’ Branch’s Ann.Tex.P.C., p. 293, sec. 569, and cases cited, namely: Leslie v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 49 S.W. 73 ; Mason v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 81 S.W. 718 ; Parrish v. State, 48 Tex.Cr.R. 347 , 88 S.W. 231 ; Jenkins v. State, 49 Tex.Cr.R. 457, 461 , 93 S.W. 726 , 122 Am.St.Rep. 809 ; Johnson v. State, 53 Tex.Cr.R. 339, 340 , 109 S.W. 936 ; Powers v. State, 69 Tex.Cr.R. 494 , 154 S.W. 1020 ; Pullen v. State, 70 Tex.Cr.R. 156 , 156 S.W. 935, 937 ; Veach v. State, 71 Tex.Cr.R. 181 , 159 S.W. 1069 ; Cooper v. State, 72 Tex.Cr.R. 266 , 162 S.W. 364 ; Coffman v. State, 73 Tex.Cr.R. 295 , 165 S.W. 939 ; Howard v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 297 , 174 S.W. 607 .””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Ward v. State, Howard v. State

Relies on 49 Tex. Crim. 457 - Jenkins v. State · 76 Tex. Crim. 250 - Medford v. State · 46 Tex. Crim. 572 - Brown v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1950-01-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

GRAVES, Judge.

¶2In appellant’s motion for a rehearing he merely reiterates the claim that in each of his points of error originally presented to us, we were in error in disposing of same.

¶3The claimed misconduct of the jury consisted of a casual remark by one of the jurors while deliberating upon the amount of punishment, as to whether the appellant had ever been in the penitentiary, and if so, was that the probable reason for his failure to take the stand. It is shown that the foreman of the jury, as well as other jurors, immediately said that they were not to consider that, and the court’s charge was referred to as saying such; that no further conversation thereon was had and no consideration given to such statement.

¶4“A bare allusion in the jury room to defendant’s failure to testify when immediately suppressed will not of itself cause the judgment of conviction to be set aside.” Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C., p. 293, sec. 569, and cases cited, namely: Leslie v. State, 49 S. W. 73; Mason v. State, 81 S. W. 718; Parrish v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 347, 88 S. W. 231; Jenkins v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 461, 93 S. W. 726; Johnson v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 340, 109 S. W. 936; Powers v. State 69 Tex. Cr. R. 494, 154 S. W. 1020; Pullen v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. R. 156, 156 S. W. 935; Veach v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. Rep. 181, 159 S. W. 1069; Cooper v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 266, 162 S. W. 364; Coffman v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. R. 295, 165 S. W. 939; Howard v. State, 76 Tex. Cr. R. 297, 174 S. W. 607.

¶5We are of the opinion that this cause was properly disposed of in our original opinion, and the motion is therefore overruled.

/154/texcrim/275 · .json · Public domain