Case Name: Ex Parte Phillip M. Firmin
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1910-11-02
Citations: 60 Tex. Crim. 222
Docket Number: No. 908
Parties: Ex Parte Phillip M. Firmin.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 222–235

Head Matter:
Ex Parte Phillip M. Firmin.
No. 908.
Decided November 2, 1910.
Rehearing Denied November 23, 1910.
1. — Habeas Corpus — Bail—Mandate—Practice on Appeal.
The Court oí Criminal Appeals has no power to reverse a habeas corpus, on appeal, where bail is denied in a capital case, and direct by mandate the lower court in a certain way to a further investigation of the case; the mandate should issue to the officer holding the prisoner, commanding him either to discharge relator, or hold him in custody. Ramsey, Judge, dissenting
2. —Same—Practice on Appeal — Case Stated.
Where relator was indicted for murder in the court below, and sued out a writ of habeas corpus, and the State offered the- indictment and the capias of arrest and closed its case, and the relator offered no testimony; whereupon the court below denied bail, the Court of Criminal Appeals will admit relator to bail and issue its mandate to the officer holding relator in custody to release him on bail. Ramsey, Judge, dissenting.
3. —Same—Burden of Proof — Bail—Capital Offense.
An indictment for murder is not of itself evidence that the relator is guilty of a capital offense, and where he seeks bail under habeas corpus the burden of proof is upon the State to establish a nonbailable case, otherwise the relator must be granted bail; and where nothing but the indictment and a capias was introduced in the court below the relator-will be admitted to bail on appeal.
Appeal from the District Court of Hill. Tried below before the Hon. W. C. Wear.
Appeal from a habeas corpus proceeding denying bail in a capital case.
The opinion states the case.
Vaughan & Hart and W. W. Ballew and Ivy, Hill & Greenwood, for relator.
On the question that the burden of proof is on the State in habeas corpus proceedings for bail in capital cases: Ex parte Newman, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 164; Ex parte Arthur, 47 S. W. Rep., 365.
John A. Mobley, Assistant Attorney-General, and A. M. Frazier, County Attorney, for the State.
Where appeal is taken from a habeas corpus denying bail and there was no evidence in the record by which the Appellate Court could fix bail, the judgment should be reversed: Code Crim. Procedure, article 905; Ex parte Brown, 63 Ala., 187.
On question of burden of proof: 6 Ency. Ev., 347; 22 L. R. A., 678; Hight v. U. S., Morris (Ia.), 407; Ex parte Bishop, 61 S. W. Rep., 308.

Opinion:
McCORD, Judge.
This is a companion case to Ex parte Phillip M. Firmin Ho. 907, this day decided in an opinion by Judge Davidson, reversing the judgment of the court below and granting bail. The facts are the same, and for the reasons stated in -that opinion this case is reversed and bail fixed in the sum of four thousand dollars. Upon the execution of bond in the terms required by law, the sheriff will release relator.
Bail granted.
Bamsey, Judge, dissents.