Case Name: ADAMS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-11-23
Citations: 243 S.W. 474
Docket Number: No. 6387
Parties: ADAMS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 243
Pages: 474–478

Head Matter:
ADAMS v. STATE.
(No. 6387.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 23, 1921.
State’s Rehearing Granted Jan. 11, 1922. Appellant’s Rehearing Granted June 21, 1922.)
1. Jury <©=>32(2), — Constitution guarantees trial by 12 impartial juror§ in felony eases.
In a prosecution for felony, a trial by an impartial jury is guaranteed by Const, art. 1, § 10, and an impartial jury consists of 12 im-, partial jurors, under article 5, § 13.
2. Criminal law <©=>923 (2)— New trial should be granted for bias of juror concealed on voir dire.
Where a juror who sat on the trial of a felony case had a bias against the defendant which he concealed from the defendant’s counsel on his voir dire examination, and which was unknown to defendant or his counsel until after the verdict, defendant is entitled to a new trial.
3. Jury <®=s97(l)— Juror who concealed knowledge of previous conviction of accused is not impartial.
A juror who knew that accused had been previously convicted for similar offense in another county and who did not reveal- his knowledge to counsel or accused, but stated he knew of no reason why he could not fairly and impartially try the accused, was not an impartial juror, since, even if he could disregard that fact, he should have revealed it to counsel for accused to give him an opportunity to exert cise a peremptory challenge.
4„ Criminal law <3=5923(1) — Prejudice of one juror is sufficient to entitle defendant to new trial.
The jury acts as a unit, and the disqualification or prejudice of one of its members is sufficient upon motion for new trial to vitiate a verdict of conviction for felony.
On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
5. Criminal law <©=>1091 (I I) — Bill of exceptions held to show evidence was incorporated therein.
■ A bill of exceptions which consisted of two typewritten pages reciting the proceedings on the hearing of the motion for new trial with a parenthetical remark at one point of “the testimony produced upon the trial is to be taken up here,” and which was fastened by a clip to the inside cover of the stenographic report of the evidence taken at the hearing, bearing file mark with the same date, sufficiently shows, where no objection was taken thereto until after judgment on appeal, that the evidence was incorporated in the bill when it was approved by the trial judge.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
O. Adams was convicted of sodomy, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
C. E. & A. E. Heidingsfelder, of Houston, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
Conviction is for sodomy. Punishment fixed at confinement pi the penitentiary for a period of 15 years.
On hearing the motion for new trial charging misconduct of the jury, the evidence disclosed, without conflict, that one of the jurors, before his selection, had knowledge of the fact that the appellant, on a former occasion, had been convicted of a like offense. It was also shown that after he was selected he communicated this- fact to other members of the jury, but that this was not done until after the jury had reached the conclusion concerning the verdict they would render. It was also disclosed that neither appellant nor his counsel were aware of this knowledge on the part of the juror; that the previous conviction was in a different jurisdiction; and that on his voir dire in. quiry was made touching his knowledge of the parties and his knowledge of any fact which would militate against his impartial action in deciding the case. He disclaimed any such knowledge; suppressed the facts which he knew, and misled the appellant. If he believed that the information in his possession would not affect his verdict, he should have discloised the facts in his possession and left the appellant in a position that he might decide whether he would excuse the juror by peremptory challenges.'
The ground for the motion for new trial is that by the juror's conduct the appellant was deprived of a trial by an impartial jury. Such a jury in felony cases is guaranteed by the Constitution. See Harris' Texas Const. art. 1, § 10. An impartial jury consists of 12 impartial jurors. Const. art. 5, § 13; Huebner v. State, 3 Tex. App. 458; Lott v. State, 18 Tex. App. 630; Jones v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 303, 106 S. W. 345, 124 Am. St. Rep. 1097.
The Legislature is commanded to pass laws making effective the provision of the Constitution that the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. Following the procedure enacted in obedience to this constitutional provision, the appellant examined the juror on his voir dire under the eye of the court and under oath, and the juror failed to disclose the knowledge which he then possessed that the appellant, in a different city, on a former occasion, had been convicted of an offense like that for which he was to be tried. It has often been held that, when an impartial juror or biased juror or prejudiced juror is selected without fault or lack of diligence on the part of the accused or his counsel, they acting in good faith upon his responses to questions upon his voir dire and having no knowledge of their inaccuracy, there exists good ground for a new trial. Long v. State, 10 Tex. App. 198; Sewell v. State, 15 Tex. App. 62; Graham v. State, 28 Tex. App. 582, 13 S. W. 1010; McWilliams v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 269, 22 S. W. 970.
We think the juror's conduct characterizes him as other than an impartial juror. Long v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 145, 22 S. W. 409; Long v. State, 10 Tex. App. 198; Hughes v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 60 S. W. 563; Hopkins v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 68 S. W. 986.
We think that the record reveals that the appellant was without laches or lack of diligence and was misled by the response of the juror into selecting him, and that, he not being an impartial juror, it was incumbent upon the trial court to grant the motion for new trial. The jury acts as a unit, and the disqualification or prejudice of one of its members is sufficient, upon motion for new trial, to vitiate the verdict. McWilliams v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 269, 22 S. W. 970; Long v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 145, 22 S. W. 409; Graham v. State, 28 Tex. App. 583, 13 S. W. 1010; Ruling Case Law, vol. 16, p. 312, § 120. The fault was not cured by the verdict, which assessed against the appellant the extreme penalty allowed by law for the offense with which he was Charged.
The judgment' is reversed, and the cause remanded.
<©=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests .and Indexes
<©=.For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes