Case ID: sw_189/html/0953-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MACIAS v. STATE.
    (No. 4289.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 22. 1916.)
    Criminal Daw <§=51035(5) — Appeal — Conduct oe Trial — Impaneling Juey — Time eor Objection.'
    Where a juror whose name was erased from the jury list by defendant’s attorney, served on the jury by mistake, without discovery, although the clerk testifies he called the list of jurors with this juror’s name thereon, it appearing that the juror was qualified, an objection after ■verdict and on appeal comes too late.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2636; Dee. Dig. <§=51035(5).]
    Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; Dan M. Jackson, Judge.
    Luz Macias was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Stafford & Brady, of El Paso, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, and his punishment assessed at five years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

There is but one question presented for review. It appears that when the jury list was furnished appellant’s attorney the name of A. B. Ahr was erased. However, through some mistake, Mr. Ahr served on the jury, and this fact was not discovered until after the verdict was received and the jury discharged. The clerk testifies he called the list of jurors with Mr. Ahr’s name thereon. Appellant’s counsel, not noticing at the time that Mr. Ahr’s name was called, he was sw.orn and impaneled to try the cause. Appellant does not contend that Mr. Ahr was in any manner prejudiced against him, or that he knew anything of the facts in the case. He says he erased the name on the recommendation o.f a brother attorney, no reason being assigned for giving such recommendation. In fact, it appears that the juror was fully qualified to try the cause. In the absence of a showing that the juror entertained animus or prejudice, this objection comes too late after verdict. Munson v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 498, 31 S. W. 387; Cooper v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 423, 144 S. W. 937.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      <§=oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes