Court Opinion

ID: 9767349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:17:11.054802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:30.684306
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING.
BEAUCHAMP, Judge.
Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing which has very clearly placed before the court his contention that he has been denied equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in that there has been a systematic discrimination in Galveston County in the selection of petit jurors for the trial of cases for a long period of time. His argument presents his view of a number of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States relating to the selection of grand jurors. It is now contended that this should be extended to the selection of jurors for the trial of cases.
The question in this particular case must be based upon a contention that the prosecuting attorney, in the exercise of the fifteen peremptory challenges allowed to him by the statute, has succeeded in excluding from jury service all Negroes who were regularly and legally drawn on the list to serve.
This statute gives both sides the same privilege and the attorney on either side, in exercising his fifteen peremptory challenges, is not required to give his reasons in any case. It may be that he does not like the community from which the party comes, or some organizations to which he is inclined to think the juror belongs. He may prefer someone in a different age class, or it is known to be frequently true that he does not like “the cut of his eye.” His right to exercise a peremptory challenge, to the extent of fifteen in a trial for murder, as fixed by the law of this state, places no restriction whatsoever on him.
The identical question was decided adversely to the appellant in McMurrin v. State, 156 Tex. Cr. R. 434, 239 S.W. 2d 632. This was also a case from Galveston County and the same attorney, Thos. H. Dent, represented the appellant in that case. The Supreme Court of the United States refused writ of certiorari. U.S. Supreme Court Reports, Law ed. Advance Opinions, Vol. 96 (dated Nov. 5, 1951). In our view its holding is conclusive against the contention in the instant case.
If we reversed this case under the contention lodged against *376it we would be saying to the state that you cannot challenge all of the Negroes on your list, while at the same time the Negro defendant would retain his right to fifteen challenges untrammeled by such holding and would thereby work an undue preference to him solely on the ground of his race. The confusion which would result from such holding cannot be estimated. We are bound by the statutory provisions on the subject and are without authority to grant the motion under the conditions presented.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.