Court Opinion

ID: 9643655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:36:47.135159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:02.154859
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
GRAVES, Presiding Judge.
In his motion for rehearing, appellant again urges the proposition relative to the allegations of misconduct of the- jury in that two of the jurors stated in an affidavit that a discussion was had in the jury room while deliberating, not upon the guilt of the appellant but upon the amount of punishment to be as*102sessed and as to what difference and effect there might be between a jail sentence and a penitentiary sentence. It was stated by members of the jury that immediately upon retiring to the jury room to deliberate, they all agreed upon the appellant’s guilt and then began to discuss the punishment to be assessed against him. Eventually the jury submitted a note to the careful trial judge which was signed by the foreman and reads as follows:
“Can a man be paroled from County Jail for good behavior or any other cause before his time is up? If so what is the minimum portion of the time does he hcufto serve?
E. V. McMillan, Foreman.”
In answer thereto the court sent the jury the following additional charge:
“Gentlemen of the Jury: In answer to the above questions, you are directed to read the charge given you by the Court and be governed thereby.”
The testimony shows rather conclusively that the jurors were discussing the amount of punishment and the place where such punishment should be served. It was eventually decided that appellant should be punished and was sentenced to confinement in the county jail for a period of one year.
Appellant contends in his motion for rehearing that this was discussing other matters and that the jurors received other testimony in their deliberations while in the jury room, and that same consisted of misconduct on the part of the jury. We have carefully read all the testimony relative to such conduct and See no reason to say that same was improper. The jurors having all decided upon his guilt as a second offender, also had the right to decide as to his place of confinement under this particular statute. We see no misconduct upon their part and think that this cause has been properly disposed of in the original opinion.
The motion for rehearing will therefore be overruled.