Roseborough v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Harrison. Tried below before the Hon. J. L. Camp. James and Reuben Roseboroügh were convicted of an assault with intent to murder W. L. Hix, and their punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary. On 24 June, 1875, a motion for new trial was filed and overruled.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Harrison. Tried below before the Hon. J. L. Camp. James and Reuben Roseboroügh were convicted of an assault with intent to murder W. L. Hix, and their punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary. On 24 June, 1875, a motion for new trial was filed and overruled. On the next day a second motion for new trial was filed, showing, under oath, that “H. A. Rozelle, the foreman of the jury who tried the cause, is not now nor was he at the time the cause was tried a qualified juror; ” * * “that said Rozelle, on this the 25th June, 1875, declared under oath that he is not a citizen…
1Opinion of the Court
Moore, Associate Justice.
The court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground of the alleged incompetency of one of the jurors by whom the case was tried. This is not one of the causes for which in cases of felony the code says new trials shall be granted. (Code Or. Pro., art. 672.) But if the juror was disqualified when he was passed upon and accepted by the parties, and this fact was unknown to appellants and their counsel, though it does not so appear in the record, it is not shown that this was not from want of proper inquiry. (Code Cr. Pro., art. 577.) Nor does it appear…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Miracle v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- State v. ColemanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
- Guerra v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1916
- Fraser v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1941
- Baker v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1878
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.