Court Opinion

ID: 9766103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:32:22.174932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:19.444601
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant seems committed to the belief that any mention of parole or time off for good behavior on the part of a juror during their deliberations will call for a reversal of the conviction. An examination of the holding of this court in Roberson, 160 Texas Cr. Rep. 381, 271 S.W. 2d 663, Johnson v. State, 165 Texas Cr. Rep. 237, 305 S.W. 2d 606, and Napier v. State, 166 Texas Cr. Rep. 361, 314 S.W. 2d 102, will dispel such assumption. It is only where such discussion is an incorrect statement of the law that a reversal will be ordered. Jackson v. State, 157 Texas Cr. Rep. 323, 248 S.W. 2d 748.
In our original opinion herein, we failed to mention the testimony of juror Rawls in which he stated that “one of the jurors said it would be easier to reach a verdict or a decision if the defendant had taken the stand, words to that effect.” He further testified that as soon as this remark was made he (Rawls) “immediately warned him that it could not be considered” and *32that the subject was not again mentioned. In Low v. State, 156 Texas Cr. Rep. 34, 238 S.W. 2d 769, we pointed out that the question on appeal was not whether the jury commented upon the defendant’s failure to testify but whether such “was taken as a circumstance against him” by said jury. We fail to find from the above that such occurred.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this case originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.