Case Name: Victor Mandujano v. State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1960-10-26
Citations: 170 Tex. Crim. 166
Docket Number: No. 32,232
Parties: Victor Mandujano v. State
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 170
Pages: 166–167

Head Matter:
Victor Mandujano v. State
No. 32,232.
October 26, 1960
No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.
Charles J. Heck, Jr., Criminal District Attorney, Mayo J. Galindo, Harry A. Nass, Jr., Assistants Criminal District Attorney, San Antonio, and Leon Douglas, State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

Opinion:
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
The offense is the sale of heroin; the punishment, 15 years.
No statement of facts on the trial is before us; however, we do have a statement of facts on the hearing of the motion for new trial. From this we learn that at one juncture of their deliberations one of the jurors asked if appellant had testified or why he had not; he was immediately instructed that such was not a proper matter for the jury's consideration, and the matter was pursued no further. We find no reversible error in this occurrence. Byrom v. State, 154 Tex. Cr. Rep. 121, 225 S. W. 2d 842; White v. State, 154 Tex. Cr. Rep. 489, 228 S. W. 2d 165; and Low v. State, 156 Tex. Cr. Rep. 34, 238 S. W. 2d 769.
At another juncture during its deliberation, some of the jurors stated that appellant could be released if he behaved while in prison after the expiration of one-third of his sentence or that he could get credit for one-third of his sentence for good behavior.
We do not construe either statement as an incorrect statement of the law and therefore not a grounds for reversal. See De La Rosa v. State, 167 Tex. Cr. Rep. 28, 317 S. W. 2d 544, and cases there cited.
Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.