Case Name: TAYLOR v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-04-16
Citations: 274 S.W. 622
Docket Number: No. 8061
Parties: TAYLOR v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 274
Pages: 622–628

Head Matter:
TAYLOR v. STATE.
(No. 8061.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 16, 1924.
State’s Rehearing Granted May 28, 1924. Appellant’s Rehearing -Granted June 26, 1925.) ’
1. Criminal law &wkey;>923(2) — Conviction not allowed to stand where one of jurors was not impartial.
Juror, who 'stated to other members during their deliberations that defendant had been convicted in federal court, at a time when members of jury had not agreed upon penalty for offense, which statement was untrue, was not an impartial juror, and conviction would not be allowed to stand.
2. Criminal law &wkey;925'/2 (3) — Verdict not set aside for every casual mention of former trial or conviction.
Under Vernon’s Ann. Code Or. Proc. art. 843, a verdict ought not to be set aside for every incidental and casual mention of a former trial or conviction.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;>l 144(15) — Conduct of juror presumed to have been calculated to injure accused.
Conduct of juror, who stated to other members during their deliberations that accused had been convicted in federal court, which statement was untrue, at a time when jury had not agreed on penalty, would be presumed to have been calculated to injure accused.
Lattimore, J., dissenting.
Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; P. A. Martin, Judge.
Mrs. Roy Taylor was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor1 for the purposes of sale, and she appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Heyser & Hicks and Taylor & Taylor, all of Wichita Ealls, for appellant.
James V. Allred, Dist. Atty., of Wichita Halls, and Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Conviction was in the district court of Wichita county for possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale; the penalty being fixed at fifteen months in the penitentiary.
In view of the disposition of this' case, a discussion of the facts will be omitted. It was insisted, in support of the motion for new trials that the jury received other evidence than that which came from the witnesses. A number of jurors -were introduced, and it appears without controversy that after they had agreed upon the guilt of appellant, and when they were divided as to her punishment, nine of the jurors apparently being for a year in the penitentiary, a statement was made by one of the members of the jury that appellant had been convicted in the federal court. Almost at once thereafter an agreement was reached fixing the penalty as appears in the record. It is admitted on behalf of the state by the state's attorney that this conduct of the jury was such as to call for a reversal. We are inclined to agree to the correctness of this proposition.
For the error based on the misconduct of the jury, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
<&wkey;>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes