Case ID: tex-crim_102/html/0633-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Simmie Combs v. The State.
    No. 9660.
    Delivered Jan. 13, 1926.
    Manufacturing Intoxicating Liquor — New Trial — Misconduct of Jury— Properly Denied.
    Where on a motion for a new trial appellant sets out the fact that one of the jurymen who sat in her case expressed an opinion prior to the trial, and the state controverts the motion, and evidence is heard, we cannot disturb the court’s holding against appellant on the issue presented, in the absence of an abuse of the discretion confided in the trial court.
    Appeal from the District Court of Grayson County. Tried below before the Hon. F. E. Wilcox, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, penalty one year in the penitentiary.
    No brief filed for appellant.
    
      Sam D. Stinson, State’s Attorney, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Assistant State’s Attorney.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

From conviction in the District Court of Grayson County for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, with punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary, this appeal is taken.

The record is before us without any exception taken to the introduction or rejection of any testimony, or to the charge of the court. Appellant’s reliance seems to be upon the supposed error of the overruling'of her motion for new trial in which she set up the fact that one of the jurymen who sat in her case had expressed an opinion prior to the trial. The state controverted the motion in this, regard and the court heard the evidence offered and decided same against the contention of appellant. We see nothing evidencing an abuse of the discretion confided in the trial court.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.