Court Opinion

ID: 9858702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:35:05.422682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:31.423052
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Commissioner.
Appellant insists that the statement in our opinion, affirming his conviction, that juror Sramek testified that the statement actually made by juror Gary during the jury’s deliberation as to punishment was “if he [appellant] got 30 years he might get out in 8 or 10 years and we might see him out on the streets” is wholly unsupported by the evidence, and that under the record he should have been granted a new trial.
In the light of such contention, we have again reviewed the evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion for new trial and find that the juror did testify as stated in the opinion.
A fact issue was raised by the evidence as to whether juror Gary’s statement was made as an assertion of fact or a mere expression of probability that appellant would be released from the penitentiary in eight or ten years if given a sentence of thirty years.
It is within the province of the trial judge to decide the issue against appellant and, under the record, he did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.