Russell v. State
Texas Supreme Court
gj ' f*1 g =D2 &® ocrs^M sí © oo © 5' §1 á £. ¡= g'S'aísáSaB' ^ g. s Sr < F& ga* ® H f>.. * H> O ^ ^ r P .Pj Ha ^ Q £3 vT* H ^ O O' e-i. g-&o g O H. s : o b g ^s- •• S- -as ° S. tí © & (2 B p- g-1-3 d- “ - 3" a¿. ? S ES ifS-giP CIS : 0 8 o °. & , 3" p ti ?2^ g g |& hJ Q P Q S CT- §. o ”*§* ppflI&ÜÍ g g o B o ® c 2 | g _ H.cr<3 g W H h g rt-° ¿ W rt-p4 aH.c ° M - - O O p <3 &Í3 “The finding of a jury not under oath cannot constitute a legal verdict upon which the court…
Read the full summary
gj ' f*1 g =D2 &® ocrs^M sí © oo © 5' §1 á £. ¡= g'S'aísáSaB' ^ g. s Sr < F& ga* ® H f>.. * H> O ^ ^ r P .Pj Ha ^ Q £3 vT* H ^ O O' e-i. g-&o g O H. s : o b g ^s- •• S- -as ° S. tí © & (2 B p- g-1-3 d- “ - 3" a¿. ? S ES ifS-giP CIS : 0 8 o °. & , 3" p ti ?2^ g g |& hJ Q P Q S CT- §. o ”*§* ppflI&ÜÍ g g o B o ® c 2 | g _ H.cr<3 g W H h g rt-° ¿ W rt-p4 aH.c ° M - - O O p <3 &Í3 “The finding of a jury not under oath cannot constitute a legal verdict upon which the court can'proceed to give '(Arthur v. The State, 3 Tex. R., 005.) If it should he thought that the statement of the record that the…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeleb, J.
The ground of the motion in arrest in the court below was that the jury was not in fact sworn. That ground i; now relied on and does ■not require notice. But it is insisted for 1 ho appellant that it appears by the i' -ord that >i e oath administered was not that prcs-i-ibed by the statute, but wa-i another and different oatli, and that upon the authority of Arthur v. The State, (2 Tex. R., 403,) it is in legal contemplation as if no oatli had been in fact administered. This view would be decisive if we are to consider the record of the judgment as containing the form or a statement of the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Garner v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1891
- State v. OstranderSupreme Court of Iowa · 1865
- State v. KellisonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1904
- Dyson v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
- State v. IceWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1890