Case Name: BRADLEY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-24
Citations: 256 S.W. 292
Docket Number: No. 8008
Parties: BRADLEY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 256
Pages: 292–294

Head Matter:
BRADLEY v. STATE.
(No. 8008.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 24, 1923.
Rehearing Granted Nov. 28, 1923.)
1. Criminal law, <&wkey;63l(8) — Service of list of talesmen after special venire exhausted not required.
An accused need not be served with list of talesmen summoned to complete jury after a special venire is exhausted.
2. Criminal law &wkey;>631 (8) — Defendant not entitled to day to pass on talesman called after special venire exhausted.
A defendant need not be given one day before being called on to pass on talesmen summoned to complete jury after special venire is exhausted.
3. Jury <&wkey;!3l (13) — Permitting members of panel to sit in courtroom during voir dire examination of other jurors not error.
It was not reversible error to permit members of panel not yet examined to sit in the courtroom while jurors were being tested on their voir dire, in the absence of a request for the retirement of those not called, or a showing that what transpired during the examination of the jurors could have affected the fairness of defendant’s trial.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;>>598(6) — Denial of continuance for absence of witnesses held not error in view of lack of diligence.
Refusal of continuance for absence of witnesses for whom no application for issuance of process was made until the case was called for trial, more than four months after indictment was returned, held not error, in view of lack of diligence.
On Motion for Rehearing.
5. Criminal law <®=o590(2) — Failure to allow day for preparation after appointment of counsel not ground for reversal.
Failure to allow defendant a day in which to prepare for trial after appointment of counsel, under Code, Cr. Proc. art. 558, held not ground for reversal, such statute not being mandatory.
6. Criminal law <&wkey;1104(3)— Agreed statement of facts relative to motion should appear in transcript.
Where denial of motion to quash venire is assigned as error, the agreed statement of facts relative to and supporting the motion should appear in the transcript and not in the narrative statement of the facts of the case.
7. Jury <®=»7ft(8)— Names of special venire should not be placed in box with names of regular jurors for selection of special venire before regular jurors have been one time drawn on special venire.
In county not using the jury wheel system and to which Code Cr. Proc. art. 660, is not applicable, the names of special venire should not be placed in the jury box with names' of regular jurors for the term and special venire drawn therefrom before the regular jurors have, been one time drawn on special venire, under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. Supp. 1922, art. 660a, providing that whenever a special venire is ordered in such counties “all the names of all the persons selected by the jury commissioners to do jury service for the term at which such venire is required shall be placed” in jury box and special venire be drawn therefrom, in view of legislative history of such statute.
Appeal from .District Court, Limestone County; A. M. Blackmon, Judge.
Jessie Bradley was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Ira Lawley, of Groesbeck, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., of Midland, Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., of De-vine, and R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Limestone county of murder, and his punishment fixed at 20 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 calíéd on to pass on such talesmen. Dow v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 278, 20 S. W. 583; Foster v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 525, 43 S. W. 1009.
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 case 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 Tex. 101; Holmes v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 370, 42 S. W. 996.
No error appearing in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
<&wkey;>For otter cases see same topic and KEV-NUMBJbitt in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes