West v. State

I agreed to the affirmance of this case because I was not convinced that appellant was injured by the argument of state’s counsel or by the alleged jury misconduct.

Upon reconsideration, I am of the opinion that such conclusion was not warranted as to jury misconduct, but, to the contrary, a fair construction of the evidence shows that appellant was injured by the misconduct of the jury.

The juror Crow testified, upon the hearing of the motion for new trial, that he reached the conclusion early in the deliberations of the jury that appellant was not guilty, and so voted through some four…