Case Name: WHITTINGTON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-06-25
Citations: 215 S.W. 456
Docket Number: No. 5461
Parties: WHITTINGTON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 215
Pages: 456–459

Head Matter:
WHITTINGTON v. STATE.
(No. 5461.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 25, 1919.
On Motion for Rehearing, Oct. 29, 1919.)
1. Juey <&wkey;70(12) — Motion to quash ve-ntee IMPROPERLY DENIED.
In the absence of any challenge on the part of accused of sufficiency of sheriff’s return under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 669, a general statement that jurors not summoned could not be found after diligent search would be sufficient; but since accused challenged conclusion that jurors could' not be found after diligent search, the court erred in overruling motion to quash venire, without requiring sheriff to make an amended return, showing at least in a general way what efforts he had made to summon the unsummoned jurors.
2. Criminal law &wkey;1166% (5) — Failure to REQUIRE SHERIFF TO AMEND RETURN NOT REVERSIBLE ERROR.
Judgment will not be-reversed for failure of court to require sheriff to amend return, so as to show efforts made to summon unsummoned juror, where it does not appear that accused suffered injury from failure of- sheriff to amend return or from lack of diligence in executing writ.
3. Jury <&wkey;99(8) — Challenge of biased juror FOR,CAUSE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED.
Juror, who, after having been summoned as a venireman, had been told by a friend that accused in his opinion was guilty and ought to be hung, and who on examination stated that he understood that ’'the information had been' obtained from those who knew more about it than the friend did, though the friend knew something of the facts, was a biased juror, and challenge for cause should have been sustained, in view of Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 692, subd. 12, although he disclaimed the formation of any opinion and the possession of any bias or prejudice.
4. Criminal law &wkey;>1166.% (8) — Failure to SUSTAIN CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE HARMLESS.
Error of court in failing to sustain challenge for cause does not require reversal, where the juror was excused on peremptory challenge of accused, and the court allowed an additional peremptory challenge.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tar-rant County; George E. Hosey, Judge.
A. J. Whittington was convicted of murder, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Baskin, Dodge, 'Eastus & Ammerman, of Ft. Worth, for appellant.
E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of murder, and given 15- years in the penitentiary.
A venire of 360 jurors was drawn; 134 of these were not summoned. The return of the sheriff is that they could not be found after diligent search. The bill of exceptions is very lengthy, and the return of the sheriff was attacked. There was no amendment made or offered to the return. It is shown by the testimony of quite a number of the jurors who were not summoned, but who testified in -regard to the diligence of the sheriff, that they were residents of the county, and many of them of the city of Ft. Worth; that their names are shown in the telephone book and directory, and could easily have been found; but, if there was any inquiry made for them, or attempt to summon them, they were not aware of the fact. There was evidence that the attorneys for appellant secured a copy of the venire on Sunday morning, and immediately instituted an investigation with reference to some of the jurors, and ascertained by the use of the telephone that they were residents of the city and easily accessible, and were where they could easily he found. Here the matter rested. The venire was not quashed, nor return amended. Appellant -was forced to trial. Out of this venire there was a jury secured. We are of opinion, under the cases of Brown v. State, 65 S. W. 912, Horn v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 404, 97 S. W. 822,. and Logan v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 74, 111 S. W. 1028, that the court was in error in not quashing' the venire. The writer deems it unnecessary, in view of the cited cases, to discuss the matter. In the Logan Case, supra, Judge Brooks, speaking for the court, said:
"This motion should have been sustained. It does not show that degree of diligence to secure the attendance of the venire which the law requires" — citing Horn v. State, supra.
It is not deemed necessary to set out the various grounds of the motion to quash. They all center in and around the main proposition that the diligence of the sheriff was not sufficient, and that by any ordinary diligence these jurors, or most of them, could harve been had at the trial. Appellant had the right to have the jurors on the special venire summoned out of which to make his selection, and unless there is some tangible, real reason why these jurors were not summoned, the venire should be set aside and a new one ordered. The return of the sheriff is not sufficient; it merely states that the jurors could not be found after diligent inquiry or search.
The other bills of exception with reference to the formation of the jury and the overruling of appellant's challenges for cause are not discussed, as these matters will not arise upon another trial. ,
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
other eases, see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes