Case Name: ADAMS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-10
Citations: 257 S.W. 249
Docket Number: No. 7673
Parties: ADAMS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 257
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
ADAMS v. STATE.
(No. 7673.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 10, 1923.
Rehearing Granted Jan. 2, 1924.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;l086(l) — Denial of 15 peremptory challenges in robbery trial held reversible error.
In trial for robbery, denial of accused’s request for 15 peremptory challenges, on the ground that the state bad waived the death penalty, held error; such waiver not sufficiently appearing from the record.
2, Criminal law <&wkey;884 — Statement by state’s attorney as to waiving death penalty held! not to bind' jury.
A statement made to the court by the attorney for the state as to his waiving the death penalty cannot bind the jury.
Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; P. A. Martin, Judge.
C. G. Adams was convicted of robbery, and appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Weldon & McDonald, of Wichita Palls, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Wichita county of robbery, and his punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary.
There is no statement of facts in the record.
Appellant complains by his first bill of exceptions of the refusal of a new trial based on newly discovered testimony. Appended to said motion is the affidavit of John A. Thom-ason stating, in substance, that J. E. Glenn, an officer of the city of Wichita Falls, came to affiant in the city hall where appellant, one S. M. Ghee, and Mary Dobson were confined, and handed affiant a package containing about one teaspoonful of white powder, wrapped in brown paper, and told affiant-that he took it off the person of Ghee. Affi-ant took said package and put it away. The affidavit contained the further statement that prior to Ghee's arrest he had been under suspicion by the police department for peddling dope and that he had been in company with a person who was subsequently indicted and convicted in the federal court for selling narcotics.
If Thomason had been a witness in court, he would not have been permitted to tell what Mr. Glenn told him about said powder. No affidavit of Glenn was procured stating that he took from the person of Ghee the powder in question. Further, we observe' that the bill of exceptions is qualified with the statement that there was no dispute or question as to appellant having taken a dose or shot of some kind of dope prior to the commission of the alleged crime in this case, and no one contradicted .appellant's statement to that effect. It would seem that, if the affidavit of Mr. Glenn had been attached; same would merely evidence cumulative testimony.
We do not think there is anything in appellant's complaint that he was not given 15 peremptory challenges. There were a number of counts in the indictment, some charging assault with firearms and robbery, thus committed, and others omitting the allegation as to the firearms. The state waived any right to ask for the death penalty before the case went to trial. There was no error in the court's refusal to allow appellant 15 peremptory challenges. Gonzales v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 248, 226 S. W. 405; Weaver v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 11, 105 S. W. 189.
Appellant's bills of exception complaining of the overruling of his objection1 to certain jurors presents no error in view of the qualifications appended by the court to said bills, from which we learn that, upon a full and fair explanation by the court of the law, each juror said that hé could and would try the case upon the law and the evidence and not be influenced by the fact that an indictment had been returned against the appellant.
Finding no error in the fecord, the judgment will be affirmed.
<§Z5>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes