Case Name: Ex parte HALEY
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-06-12
Citations: 204 S.W. 330
Docket Number: No. 5090
Parties: Ex parte HALEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 204
Pages: 330–330

Head Matter:
Ex parte HALEY.
(No. 5090.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 12, 1918.)
Bail <S=o42 — Persons Entitled to Bail.
Where one was charged by complaint with murder, and the statement of facts of the testimony at the examining trial, which was used by consent, indicated that other pertinent tesimony might have been introduced, and it does not appear that the proof was so evident as to justify holding the prisoner without bail, bail will be granted.
Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
- W. I. Haley was charged by complaint with murder, and from an order denyMg bail, he appeals.
Reversed, and bail granted.
Williams, Puckitt & Harty, of Dallas, and Martin & McDonald, of Austin, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, J.
TMs is an appeal from an order of the district judge denying bail, wherein appellant was charged by complaint with murder. No indictment had then been found. Shortly after the killing of deceased, an examining trial was held, at which certain testimony was introduced. On the hearing before the district judge on ha-beas corpus it was agreed that the statement of the testimony heard on said examining trial should be used, which was done. No oral testimony was heard by the district judge. The applicant introduced no testimony.
TMs statement of facts would indicate that other pertinent testimony bearing upon the case might have been introduced. Why it was not is not .shown. It has been carefully read and considered. Erom it we cannot say with that degree of certainty which should obtain, that the proof is so evident as to justify holding he is not entitled to ball. The fact that we hold that from this statement of facts, appellant is entitled to bail, cannot and does not have any bearing or effect on any verdict which may be found on a final trial, nor on the punishment to be inflicted, if he is found guilty.
Under the law, as we understand it, we are constrained to hold that the applicant is entitled to bail, and therefore reverse the judgment denying it, and fix the amount of bail at $20,000.
Reversed, and bail granted.