Case Name: Clayton Kemp v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-11-10
Citations: 106 Tex. Crim. 103
Docket Number: No. 10002
Parties: Clayton Kemp v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 106
Pages: 103–106

Head Matter:
Clayton Kemp v. The State.
No. 10002.
Delivered November 10, 1926.
Rehearing denied February 2, 1927.
Second Rehearing refused February 16, 1927.
The opinion states the case.
Ramey & Davidson of Sulphur Springs, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Attorney, and Robert M. Lyles, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
BAKER, Judge.
The appellant was convicted in the District Court of Hopkins County for theft of seed cotton over the value of §50, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for five years.
There is no statement of facts in the record, and the only question presented for our consideration is the alleged refusal of the court to quash the indictment, because it is contended that the District Judge, after the jury commissioners had selected the list of grand jurors and before same had been sealed, erased from said list some of the names thereon and directed that other names should be selected by said commission in lieu thereof. The appellant urges the same objections to said indictment that are made in the case of Tom Gentry v. State, No. 10000, this day handed down by the court. The discussion of the points made, citations of authorities and conclusions reached by the court in the Gentry case, supra, are applicable to the instant case, and for the reasons there stated the objections to said indictments and the action of the court thereon are here overruled.
After a careful examination of the record, and finding no reversible error therein, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.
Affirmed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.