Case ID: sw_278/html/0195-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TALLEY v. STATE.
    (No. 9539.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 16, 1925.)
    Criminal law <&wkey;862 — Jurors’ statements as to information, aside from testimony, that defendant had been selling' liquor, held to require reversal of conviction.
    Statements by number of jurors while in retirement that they had been informed, aside from witnesses’ testimony, that defendant had been selling liquor, held to require, reversal of conviction, though much of such discussion took place after jurors had agreed on verdict of guilty, where it was used to induce certain jurors to agree to heavier penalty.
    Appeal from District Court, Stephens County ; O. O. Hamlin, Judge.
    L. A. Talley was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    . Y. L. Shurtleff, of Breckenridge, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

From conviction in the district court of Stephens county for the offense of selling intoxicating liquor, with punishment fixed at 214 years in the penitentiary, this appeal is taken.

There are two bills of exception in the record, the first of which presents appellant’s complaint of misconduct of the jury which tried him. Upon the hearing of his motion for new trial appellant presented the oral testimony of a number of the jurors, and without stating at length the testimony of each, we observe that the jurors were practically unanimous in their testimony that statements were made by a number of the jurors' while in retirement that, aside from the testimony of the witnesses, they had been informed that this appellant and people in his neighborhood had been engaged in the selling of liquor. The fact that much of this discussion took place after the jurors had agreed upon a verdict of guilty would not seem to remove the vice of the illegal argument, as it was used in the jury room to increase the penalty and to induce some jurors holding out for a low penalty to agree with their brethren in inflicting a heavier penalty.

The remaining bill of exceptions relates to argument of state’s counsel, which will probably not occur upon another trial.

For the error mentioned the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      <§3»For other cases see same topic and KE’Y-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes