Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

422 S.W.2d 448

Jackson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided January 3, 1968

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1968-01-03

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1968-01-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 2002

3 state decisions

1019681970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION

BELCHER, Judge.

¶2This is an appeal by Horace G. Cook and Kathryn B. Cook as sureties upon the bail bond of Joe Curtis Jackson from a final judgment of the County Court of Brazoria County upon a forfeiture of said bond. The judgment final was rendered and entered on July 26, 1967.

¶3Judgment nisi was entered May 15, 1967. Such a judgment on a bail bond is interlocutory and conditional. Said judgment provided that it would be made final unless good cause be shown why the appellant did not appear.

¶4It is evident from the record that upon the hearing of the judgment final, the instanter bail bond in the sum of $300 and the judgment nisi marked Exhibit B which are included in the transcript; were introduced in evidence. They appear to be regular and valid and sufficiently establish the state’s case.

¶5In answer to the judgment nisi, the sureties sought to prove that their principal had been charged and arrested for another criminal offense and was confined *449continuously in jail on such charges from May IS, until after July 27, 1967; and that such confinement prevented the appearance of the principal in court and exonerates them.

¶6To show such confinement of the principal in jail, the appellants attached to their brief filed in this court on October 20, 1967, an affidavit to that effect signed by an employee of the sheriff’s office in Harris County. There is no probative evidence which can be considered in support of appellants’ position.

¶7In the absence of proof showing that the principal was confined in jail at the time the judgment nisi was entered, appellants’ contention cannot be sustained.

¶8No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

/422/sw2d/448 · .json · Public domain