TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lorance v. State

Ed Lorance v. the State

Lorance v. State, 36 S.W. 93 (Tex. Crim. App. 1896)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 3, 1896
Docket
No. 1053.
Judges
Davidson
Citations
36 S.W. 9337 Tex. Crim. 4531896 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 265
Headnotes
Jury—Recalling "Witness as to His Testimony. After a jury has retired to consider of their verdict in the case, and at their instance a witness is recalled, he can only be so recalled for the purpose of restating the testimony already given by him, and it is error to interrogate him with reference to any other fact.
Summary
Appeal from the County Court of Bosque. Tried below before Hon. W. B. Thompson, County Judge. Appeal from a conviction for disturbance of religious worship; pen•alty, a fine of $25. No statement necessary.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Davidson

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of disturbing religious worship, and fined $25; hence this appeal. The defendant’s fourth bill of exceptions recites that, “after the jury had retired to consider of their verdict, they returned into open court, and the court propounded the following question to both the State’s witnesses, Romine and Whitely, to-wit: ‘Did the disturbance continue after the minister reproved the boys the first time?’ To which question the witness, Romine, answered that it did, and continued until the boys went out of the church. The witness, Whitely, answered that he did not remember, and could not say. To which counsel for the defendant objected because the word ‘disturbance’ was used in place of ‘talking, laughing and whispering,’ as used in the indictment, and because the question did not ask the witnesses to state what he testified while on the stand, but the witnesses were to answer the above question..” Error is assigned upon this ruling of the court. We think the error is well assigned. After a jury has retired to consider of their verdict, they cannot hear testimony other than that which has already been placed before them; and, in the event any witness is recalled, he can only be so recalled for the purpose of restating the testimony already given by him. He cannot be interrogated with reference to any other fact. This is a plain statutory provision. See, Willson’s Crim. Stat., §§ 2384, 2385; Williams v. State, 35 Tex. Crim. Rep., 183. The other questions suggested for reversal we deem without merit. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and Remanded.

Hurt, Presiding Judge, absent.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1923: 12013: 119232026peak 1923 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Jaime Ricardo Perez v. StateNo. 14-11-01102-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 21, 2013)
  2. Gonzales v. State257 S.W. 251 (Tex. Crim. App. 1923)

Most recent

  1. Jaime Ricardo Perez v. StateNo. 14-11-01102-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 21, 2013)
  2. Gonzales v. State257 S.W. 251 (Tex. Crim. App. 1923)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Williams v. State, 32 S.W. 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 1895) 16

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list