Court Opinion

ID: 9655279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:04:49.048644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:17.299596
License: Public Domain

DAVIDSON, Judge
(dissenting).
In the case of Salcido v. State, (page 173, this volume), 319 S.W. 2d 329, decided January 7,1959, my brethren — over my protest — affirmed a conviction carrying a punishment of thirty years in the penitentiary. During the jury’s deliberation in that case, it was stated as a fact that the defendant would be subject to pardon, parole, and time off for good behavior and would serve only one-third of the time to which he was sentenced.
The foregoing is taken from the syllabi of that case.
In my dissenting opinion in the Salcido case I pointed out that what was said in the jury room, during deliberations, relative to the time Salcido would receive under the pardon and parole laws were statements of facts but that such, in fact, were not true. I also pointed out that such discussion caused the jury to increase by twenty years the punishment assessed, which otherwise would not have been done.
*550That Salcido was injured by jury misconduct was definitely shown.
Now, a little over two months after the Salcido case was written, here comes this case and the court reverses this three-year conviction because the jury was told, during- deliberations, that the trial court could extend parole or probation to one convicted of murder.
The holding in the Salcido case is not attempted to be distinguished from the instant case. No distinction exists nor is authorized.
Both cases involved jury misconduct, with the accused being injured as a result of that misconduct.
If this case is to be reversed, then the Salcido case is wrong and my brethren ought to reopen that case and reverse the conviction.
If the Salcido case is right and Salcido should serve the thirty years in the penitentiary, the instant case should be affirmed.
Talk about “consistency!” How can such exist where this court makes “flesh out of one and fowl out of the other,” as has here been done ?
So long as my brethren elect to stand by the holding in the Salcido case and proclaim the conclusion there expressed as the law, in obedience thereto I must dissent to the reversal of this case.