Williams v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Lamar. Tried below before the Hon. A. H. Latimer. On the trial of the appellant for the murder of one Turner Hopgood, the witnesses on both sides having been placed under the rule, the district attorney asked permission of the court to confer with the witnesses for the State. Counsel for the prisoner objected, on the simple ground that the witnesses had been placed under the rule.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lamar. Tried below before the Hon. A. H. Latimer. On the trial of the appellant for the murder of one Turner Hopgood, the witnesses on both sides having been placed under the rule, the district attorney asked permission of the court to confer with the witnesses for the State. Counsel for the prisoner objected, on the simple ground that the witnesses had been placed under the rule. The objection was overruled, and the permission granted; to which exceptions were reserved. The verdict was murder in the first degree, with the penitentiary for life assessed as the penalty. There is no…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
No objection was taken to the charge of the court by the appellant or his counsel on the trial, and we find no such errors or misdirections as would, entitle the appellant to a new trial under the first assignment for error.
In the second assignment it is clear that counsel have mistaken the law.
Placing the State’s witnesses under the rule will not deprive the district attorney of the right to confer with them in a proper manner; this is Ms privilege, and, moreover, may be regarded as Ms duty.
Nor is it any infraction of the law, breach of professional etliics, or cause of suspicion against the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Root v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1960
- Creswell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1883
- Davis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1879
- Jones v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1877
- Root v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1960
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.