Court Opinion

ID: 9685114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:23:19.886855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:02.440339
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
GRAVES, Presiding Judge.
Appellant has filed a comprehensive motion for rehearing herein alleging, among other things, that we were incorrect in our original opinion in that we made the statement:
“At the time the above discussion was had in the jury room, all jurors had agreed as to appellant’s guilt. It is not clear whether they had begun to ballot on the punishment when such statement was made. Such balloting covered the spread from thirty to ninety-nine years.”
From the statement of facts we take the following excerpts:
*40“Q. I will ask you whether the jury first balloted on the guilt or innocence of the defendant? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Were they divided on that as to the guilt or innocence or was it all one way? A. All one way.
“Q. What way was that? A. Guilty.
“Q. And then you balloted on the term of years? A. Yes, sir. We spent some time studying the charge.”
While this witness may have possibly made a contrary answer as to when the allusion was made to the defendant’s failure to testify, still we think we were justified in making the above quoted statement in the original opinion.
Appellant stresses the further proposition at this time based upon the testimony of Mr. Yolland, the foreman of the jury, wherein it is said that in the discussion in the jury room during their deliberations some person made the statement that he wondered why Frank Low did not take the witness stand, and the foreman of the jury made the following statements:
“Q. I will ask you to state whether or not during your deliberations a statement was made by one of the jurors pertaining to the defendant, Frank Low, taking the witness stand? A. The question was asked.
“Q. Will you relate in your own words what took place in that connection? A. The question was asked why he did not take the witness stand and I answered it that it was the defendant’s privilege whether he wanted to take the witness stand and that we were not to take into discussion whether he was to take the stand or not as far as our part of it. It was in the form of a question and answered in that manner and there was no further discussion.
“Q. Let me ask you, I refer you now to a statement, either that a juror, either you or someone in answer to that question said ‘on account of his reputation.’ A. Not on account of his reputation, not on account of Frank’s reputation, but in answer to the question that a defendant whenever he takes the stand that would open up the whole life of his reputation, merely a rule in regard to a defendant taking the stand, he does not have to take the stand.”
This was as far as the discussion went, and it was immedirtely dropped after this answer and was not further referred to.
*41The statute, Art. 710, Vernon’s C.C.P., reads as follows:
“Any defendant in a criminal action shall be permitted to testify in his own behalf therein, but the failure of any defendant to so testify shall not be taken as a circumstance against him, nor shall the same be alluded to or commented on by counsel in the cause * *
It will be noted therefrom that the fact of the defendant’s failure to take the stand shall not be taken as a circumstance against him, nor shall the same be alluded to or commented on by counsel in the cause. The testimony offered us herein shows that it was not further alluded to by anyone nor commented on by anyone further than as it is shown herein.
The contention is made that the jury by this statement of one of the jurors took into consideration something that had not been submitted to them and that raised the question of the defendant’s reputation. In the first place, the defendant submitted his own reputation to the jury by reason of the filing of a request for a suspended sentence. See Art. 778, Vernon’s Ann, C.C.P., and cases cited; also Mangum v. State, 139 Tex. Cr. R. 111, 139 S.W. (2d) 94; Stewart, 148 Tex. Cr. R. 480; 188 S.W. (2d) 167, and cases cited. In the next place, the jury evidently took no consideration of any kind of this discussion that has been complained of because of the fact that two further jurors testified on the hearing of the motion for new trial as to what they heard of the conversation. However, one of them did hear the foreman of the jury say that the jury had no right to take into consideration the defendant’s failure to testify, and the matter was then dropped; and the other one heard nothing thereof. There were seven more jurors present in court at the time of this hearing and none of them was placed on the witness stand. Furthermore, we see no error in such statement of the foreman, and we do not think it could have affected this verdict in any way.
We think the court was fairly liberal to the appellant in that he gave him three extra peremptory challenges, making eighteen in all for appellant, in an excess of caution, he having overruled three challenges for cause and appellant had used three peremptory challenges on such jurors. He thus returned to the appellant any peremptory challenge that appellant had been forced to utilize in order to relieve himself of the presence of these three objectionable jurors.
*42We see no error presented herein, and the motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.