Dansby v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Rusk. Tried below before the Hon. J. B. Williamson. The affidavit respecting the interference of the officer in charge ' of the jury stated that he, the deputy sheriff and bailiff, “ came into the jury room while they were deliberating on their verdict, and said that they ought to send the defendant to the penitentiary; and when the jury would not agree to send the defendant to the penitentiary, he then said that they ought to fine him three hundred dollars and…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Rusk. Tried below before the Hon. J. B. Williamson. The affidavit respecting the interference of the officer in charge ' of the jury stated that he, the deputy sheriff and bailiff, “ came into the jury room while they were deliberating on their verdict, and said that they ought to send the defendant to the penitentiary; and when the jury would not agree to send the defendant to the penitentiary, he then said that they ought to fine him three hundred dollars and put him in jail for sixty days; and used argument why they should punish him severely.” The verdict was in accordance…
1Opinion of the CourtOgdeh, J.
The indictment in this case is sufficient to sustain the. verdict and judgment, and" the charge of 'the court is a fair exposition of the law in relation to the case, as made out by the indictment and the evidence adduced on the trial; and we see no *394sufficient error in the refusal hy the court to give the charges asked by the defendant to authorize a reversal of this case. Nor was there any error in the ruling of the court on the motion for a new trial, on account of newly discovered testimony. To entitle a party to a new trial on account of newly discovered evidence, he must show by his…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Scranton v. TilleyTexas Supreme Court · 1856
3Cited by3 opinions
- Emmert v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1933
- Stapp v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Gibbs v. State.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1876