# Wolfe v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · January 5, 1944 · 147 Tex. Crim. 62

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3914306

## Case

- **Full name:** J. C. Wolfe v. the State
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** January 5, 1944
- **Citations:** 147 Tex. Crim. 62; 178 S.W.2d 274; 1944 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 848
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hawkins
- **Judges:** Graves, Beauchamp, Hawkins
- **Cited by:** 75 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3914306

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that objecting party must state that a remaining veniremember is objectionable, although the objecting party need not state why the remaining veniremember is objectionable
- holding that trial court should have sustained defense counsel’s challenge for cause against juror who served on the grand jury which found the indictment
- holding that if a challenge for cause is improperly denied, the accused need not state why the identified juror left on veni-re was objectionable

## Opinion text

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge
(dissenting).
My brethren have reached the conclusion that appellant’s motion for rehearing should be granted. My views upon the point at issue are expressed in the original opinion affirming the judgment, and they remain unchanged. It follows that in my judgment the motion for rehearing should be overruled:
Accordingly, I register my dissent to granting the motion with reference to the original opinion for my reasons.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3914306. Public record. Not legal advice.