Case ID: sw2d_5/html/0982-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J. HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SCHAEFER v. STATE.
    (No. 11747.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 18, 1928.
    Rehearing Denied May 16, 1928.
    Criminal law <§=>957(1) — Jurors held not entitled to impeach verdict by showing testimony was used for another purpose than that for which it was admitted.
    Testimony of jurors that jury misappropriated testimony and used it for another purpose than that for which it was admitted Held inadmissible to impeach verdict.
    Appeal from District Court, Bexar County ; O. M. Fitzhugh, Special Judge.
    Frank Schaefer was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    L. B. Camp, Deonard Garza, Jr., and T. B. Monroe, all of San Antonio, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State. .
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for burglary; punishment, three years in. the penitentiary.

We find in the record no statement of facts, and but one bill of exceptions in the transcript. The complaint in this bill is of the overruling of the motion for new trial apparently sought on the ground of misconduct of xhe jury. The bill sets out the testimony of three jurors. We gather that appellant’s purpose was to show by said parties their misappropriation of certain testimony. The claim was that the testimony was admitted for one. purpose and that the jury misappropriated same and used it for another purpose. We do not believe it permissible for a juror to attempt to impeach his verdict in this manner. Esquivel v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 125, 246 S. W. 399; Sims v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 519, 258 S. W. 165.

The judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, J.

The authorities referred to in Esquivel v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 125, 246 S. W. 399, and Sims v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 519, 258 S. W. 165, which are cited in our original opinion, amply support the holding announced. More recent decisions on the point are Ross v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 295, 273 S. W. 582, and Thomas v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 144, 274 S. W. 577.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.