Defendant’s supplemental motion for new trial supported by affidavit of himself and his attorneys, shows that for several hours and during the greater portion of the argument of counsel both for the State and defendant, the presiding judge was in his private room with the door closed and not within sight or hearing of defendant, his attorneys and the jury who tried the case.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1919
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1
Appellant was convicted of manslaughter, and Ms punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years. The only question we deem necessary to pass upon is the absence of the district judge from the bench during the trial of the case. The
*477
facts presenting this matter are, in substance, the same as in Bateson 'v. State, from Johnson .County, decided at the Dallas term, 1904. While in some respects it differs from the facts therein detailed, it is not of sufficient importance to rehearse here. We held in that case that the absence of the judge from the courtroom during the progress of the trial constituted reversible error. For the reason therein assigned, the judgment here is reversed and the cause remanded.
