State v. White
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Jasper. Tried below before the Hon. Archibald. W. 0. Hicks. Appellee was indicted for playing at cards, &c., and pleaded in abatement of the indictment, that twenty-nine jurors of the original venire appeared, and that the Court instead of having the grand jury drawn out of th/s number, directed a special venire for a sufficient number mjore to make up the original thirty-six, and that the grand jury' was drawn out of the whole number thus brought in.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jasper. Tried below before the Hon. Archibald. W. 0. Hicks. Appellee was indicted for playing at cards, &c., and pleaded in abatement of the indictment, that twenty-nine jurors of the original venire appeared, and that the Court instead of having the grand jury drawn out of th/s number, directed a special venire for a sufficient number mjore to make up the original thirty-six, and that the grand jury' was drawn out of the whole number thus brought in. The indictment was quashed upon this plea, and the State appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
In the case of Vanhook v. The State we held that mere irregularities in the manner of selecting and *243impanneling the grand jury, not affecting the competency of any of the members, cannot be pleaded in abatement, or made the ground of a motion to quash the indictment, but can only be taken advantage of by challenge. (12 Tex. R. 252, 268.) The matter pleaded in abatement of the present indictment was a mere irregularity in impanneling the grand jury, in no way affecting the qualifications or competency of any of the members of that body; and on the authority of the case of Vanhook and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Thomason v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1877
- Schultz v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1884