Case Name: Jessie Bradley v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-24
Citations: 96 Tex. Crim. 81
Docket Number: No. 8008
Parties: Jessie Bradley v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 81–85

Head Matter:
Jessie Bradley v. The State.
No. 8008.
Decided October 24, 1923.
Rehearing granted November 28, 1923.
1. — Murder—Jury and Jury Law — List of Talesmen.
It is not required that the accused be served with a list of tales-men summoned to complete the jury, after a special venire is exhausted, and that he be given one day before being called on to pass on such tales-men. Following Foster v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 525, and other cases.
2. —Same—Practice in Trial Court — Voir Dire Examination.
Where it was not shown by the bill of exceptions that any request was made for the retirement of those members of the jury panel, not yet called, or that anything transpired during the examination of said jurors which could have affected the fairness of appellant’s trial, there was no reversible error.
3. —Same—Continuance—Want of Diligence.
Where the face of the application for continuance showed a want of diligence for process, the same was correctly overruled.
4. —Same—Rehearing—Jury and Jury Law — Special Venire.
For the error in placing the names of the special venire list in the box with those of the regular jurors for the term, before the latter had been one time drawn upon special venires, and in selecting the special venire from the aggregate of both the regular and special venire lists, the motion for rehearing must be granted, and the judgment reversed and the cause remanded. Following Moore v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep., 629.
Appeal from the District Court of Limestone. Tried below before the Honorable A. M. Blackmon.
Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, twenty vears imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Ira Lawley, for appellant.
Cited, cases in opinion.
Tom Garrard and Grover C. Morris, Assistants Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
— Appellant Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Limestone County of murder, and his punishment fixed at twenty years in the penitentiary.
Without stating the facts at length they sufficiently show that on the occasion charged in the indictment appellant shot and killed Elisha Downie. The eyewitnesses all testified that Downie was trying to. hide behind another man at the time, and that the shooting was with very little, if any, provocation or excuse.
Appellant filed a lengthy motion to quash the special venire which - was overruled and the bill of exceptions taken to this action of the court is so qualified by the learned trial judge as to render the objections made by appellant of no avail. No new matters are presented and we deem it unnecessary to set out the contentions at length.
It is not required that the accused be served with a list of talesmen summoned to complete the jury, after a special venire is exhausted, and that he be given one day before being called on to pass on such talesmen. Dow v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 278; Poster v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 525.
This court has never held that it was reversible error to permit the members of the panel not yet examined to sit in the courtroom while the respective jurors were being tested on their voir dire. In the instant ease the bill of exceptions does not show that any request was made for the retirement of those not yet called, nor is it made to appear that anything transpired during the examination of said jurors which could have affected the fairness of appellant's trial.
Appellant's bill of exceptions No. 1 complains of the refusal of his application for continuance. It appears that he was indicted September 14, 1922, and was then in jail where he remained until the case was called for trial January 24, 1923, and that no application for the issuance of process for any of his witnesses was made until the latter date. This was not diligence. Cox v. State, 43 Texas, 101; Holmes v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 370.
No error appearing in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.