Clanton v. State

Citations

• 13 Tex. Ct. App. 139
• 1882 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 197

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—Jury Law.—Two proposed jurors on their voir dire avowed that they had conscientious scruples . in regard to the infliction of the punishment of death for crime, to that extent that they would not assess it upon circumstantial evidence. Held, that the proposed jurors were disqualified, and the trial court did not err in setting them aside.</p> <p>2. Practice—Evidence—Impeachment of a Witness.—Article 755 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that “the rule that a party introducing a witness shall not attack his testimony is so far modified as that any party, when facts stated by the witness are injurious to his cause, may attack his testimony in any other manner except by proving the bad character of the witness.”</p> <p>3. Evidence—Case Overruled.—In a prosecution for murder the State introduced several members of the grand jury which presented the indictment, to prove that the testimony of a State’s witness before the grand jury was contrary to his testimony on the trial. The defense objected to this evidence upon the ground that it was in violation of the grand juror’s oath as prescribed by the Code. But held, that while such evidence is not properly admissible for all purposes, nor in reference to all the proceedings of the grand jury, it is competent, when, in the judgment of the court, it is material to the due administration of justice. In so far as it announces the contrary doctrine, the case of Ruby v. The State, 9 Texas Ct. App., 353, is overruled.</p> <p>4. Evidence—Murder.—See the opinion in extenso, and the statement of the case, for evidence held sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder in the first degree.</p>