Case Name: BENNETT v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-05-21
Citations: 261 S.W. 1036
Docket Number: No. 8368
Parties: BENNETT v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 261
Pages: 1036–1037

Head Matter:
BENNETT v. STATE.
(No. 8368.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 21, 1924.)
1. Jury <&wkey;>13l(4) — Refusal to permit defendant to question proposed jurors as to membership in l<u KIux Klan held reversible error.
Refusal to permit defendant to question proposed jurors as to their membership in Ku Klux Klan, in order that he might intelligently exercise peremptory challenges, held reversible error.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;1134(3) — Questions which may not arise on retrial not considered.
Questions which may not arise on retrial will not be considered where cause is remanded on other grounds.
—'Fnr other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from District Court, Cooke County; C. R. Pearman, Judge.
Lonnie Bennett was convicted of burglary, and appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
J. L. Gettys and W. S. Moore, both, of Gainesville, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover <5. Morris, Asst. State’s- Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction is for burglary, punishment being two years in the penitentiary.
Appellant desired to question the proposed jurors relative to their membership in, or affiliation with, the organization known as the Ku Klux Iflan. He stated that he believed some of the jurors were members of such organization and prejudiced against him, and wished to interrogate the respective jurors in order to ascertain these matters. The court declined to permit him to do so. Appellant's proposition is that he should have been accorded the right to make the investigation in order that he might intelligently have exercised the peremptory challenges accorded him under the statute. The state's attorney concedes that the learned trial judge was in error in the ruling complained of. The following cases are directly in point: Reich v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 449, 251 S. W. 1072; Benson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 254 S. W. 793; Belcher v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 257 S. W. 1097; Welk v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 257 S. W. 1099. Many authorities will be found cited in the foregoing cases, among them being Kerley v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 199, 230 S. W. 163, in which the scope and purpose of "peremptory" challenges are discussed at some length. For the error mentioned the judgment must be reversed.
Other questions presented may not arise upon another trial and will not be considered.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.