Johnson v. State

Citations

• 21 Tex. Ct. App. 368
• 17 S.W. 252
• 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 157

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—Jury Law.—The ability “to write,” prescribed by the Code of Procedure as one of the qualifications of a juror, is not satisfied by the proposed juror’s ability to write his name and nothing more. The statute contemplates that the juror shall be able to express his ideas in writing.</p> <p>2. Same.—A proposed fjuror stated on his voir dire that he heard the evidence in part on the habeas corpus trial of the accused, and formed, at that time, an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, but that the opinion so formed would not now influence his verdict; and that, notwithstanding such former opinion, he could render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence. At the instance of the prosecution, and over objection by the defense, the juror was held incompetent. Held, error. The juror did not state that he then entertained any conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and the opinion he spoke of was a past, and not a present opinion. Moreover, the juror declared that such former opinion would not influence his verdict, and without further examination showing that it probably would, the juror should not have been rejected over the defendant’s objection.</p> <p>3. Same—Rape—-Evidence.—The State was permitted, over the objection of the defendant, to prove by a witness the acts and declarations of the prosecuting witness after the commission of the alleged rape. Held, that the evidence was inadmissible. The rule on the subject is as follows: “ In prosecutions for rape, the party injured being a witness, it is admissible to prove that she made complaint of the injury while it was recent, but the particulars of her complaint are not evidence, except to corroborate her testimony when attacked. In any view, such statements can not be received as independent evidence to show who committed the offense.” See the opinion on the question.</p> <p>4. Same—Alibi— Charge op the Court.—The trial court charged the jury, in effect, t