Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 225
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1875.] MORGAN v. THE STATE. 225
Opinion of the Court.
Various exceptions were taken to the indictment which, with
many other grounds for a reversal, are set forth in the assignment
of errors, and which it is not necessary to notice. The
omission to have the oath, required bylaw, administered to the
jury, although unnoticed by the counsel for appellant, is a fatal
defect for which the judgment must be set aside. Article 563
of the code of criminal procedure, prescribes the oath to be
administered to a juror in criminal cases, which must be followed,
or what has been considered its equivalent administered
in its absence.
In Arthur v. the State, 3 Texas, 405, the oath prescribed by
the Statute was omitted, and as in the present case a different
oath was administered to the jury. Justice Wheeler in delivering
the opinion in the case said, " Had the record stated mere"ly
that the jury were duly sworn, we must have presumed
"that the proper oath was administered to them, but when it
"appears affirmatively, that they were not sworn as the law requires,
there is no room for any intendment, of the regularity
"and legality of the proceedings, and the objection must be
" held fatal. When the Legislature have undertaken to prescribe
"the oath which shall be taken, it must be observed, and when
"the record- shows the statutory requirement has been disre"garded,
and the court has proceeded to substitute something
" else in its stead, it will be as if no oath had been administered."
The oath administered to the jury in the case before
the court, was, after stating " came a jury of good and law"ful.
men, to wit: Mr. W. Pharr and eleven others," "who
"were duly empaneled and sworn, to try the issue joined be"tweeri
the State of Texas and Charles Morgan, upon his plea
"of not guilty." This is not the oath prescribed by the code;
this, upon a similar form of oath, has been held as fatal to the
conviction in several cases not yet reported: decided at the last
Austin and Tyler terms.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/233/: accessed July 26, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .