TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lyons v. State

Jim Lyons v. the State

Lyons v. State, 189 S.W.2d 269 (Tex. Crim. App. 1916)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 1, 1916
Docket
No. 4266.
Judges
Harper
Citations
189 S.W.2d 269189 S.W. 26980 Tex. Crim. 2311916 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 305
Headnotes
Perjury—Jury Not Sworn—Practice on Appeal. Under article 904, Code Criminal Procedure, as amended, it is provided that this court must conclusively presume that the jury was sworn, unless such fact was made an issue in the court below; besides, where the jury were once sworn and the case dismissed, but defendant consented to go to trial, before the same jury, this was sufficient.
Summary
The opinion states the case.

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

Opinion of the Court — Harper

HARPER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of perjury and his punishment assessed’ at two years confinement in the State penitentiary.

No statement of facts accompanies the record, but in the motion for a new trial appellant contends that the jury was not sworn to try this case. In the affidavits he states the facts to he: That one case was called against appellant, and a jury was duly empaneled and sworn; that the district attorney then dismissed that case, and the trial of this case proceeded with before the same jury, without the jury being again sworn. The judgment recites that the jury was duly empaneled and sworn, and the first time this question is attempted to be raised is after verdict in the motion for new trial. Article 904, as amended, provides that on appeal we must conclusively presume that the jury was sworn unless such fact was made an issue in the court below. Certainly no such issue was raised during the trial; and if it can be *232 said to be raised by these affidavits, the judgment of the court recites that he heard evidence on that issue and determined it against appellant’s contention. Appellant does not present that evidence to us, and we certainly can not under such circumstances adjudge “that it affirmatively appears hy the record” that the jury was not sworn. We are further of the opinion that when the jury was sworn in the first instance, that case dismissed, and when appellant consented to go to trial in this case before the same jury which had been duly sworn, it was a substantial compliance with the statute.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1917: 11936: 119172026peak 1917 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Howard v. State192 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1917) · Dissent
  2. State v. Frazier98 S.W.2d 707 (Mo. 1936)

Most recent

  1. State v. Frazier98 S.W.2d 707 (Mo. 1936)
  2. Howard v. State192 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1917) · Dissent

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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