# Brown v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · December 20, 1950 · 156 Tex. Crim. 32

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4901919

## Case

- **Full name:** C. C. Brown v. State
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** December 20, 1950
- **Citations:** 156 Tex. Crim. 32; 238 S.W.2d 787; 1950 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1491
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Beauchamp
- **Judges:** Beauchamp, Davidson, Woodley
- **Cited by:** 6 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/4901919

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an oath to perform the duties of a special judge "agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State" but did not include an obligation to "preserve, protect The Honorable Jo Anne Bernal - Page 5 (KP-0140) and defend" the constitutions a…
- holding special judge, until he takes oath, has no authority to act

## Opinion text

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.
The appeal is from a conviction for violation of the local option law with a fine of $100.00
Appellant was convicted by a jury, which fixed the penalty. The only question raised on this appeal complains that the special judge trying the case was not selected and qualified according to law and that he, therefore, had no jurisdiction to try the case.
The regular county judge was ill and in the hospital the day the court convened and the lawyers present proceeded to elect Walter K. Boyd, Jr. for the term of court in his place. An examination of the transcript reveals the procedure to be in strict compliance with Article 1934, Vernon’s Ann. Civil Statutes. It is appellant’s contention, however, that a special judge for the term could not be elected for the purpose of trying criminal cases. To this we cannot agree. When he has taken the oath as special judge he has all the authority to try a case which the regular judge would have if present.
*33 From appellant’s brief it appears there is some confusion in understanding the authorities because of a line of cases holding that where a special judge is agreed upon each defendant must agree upon such special judge, and he is required to take a separate oath in each case tried. This is in accordance with Mims v. State, 112 Tex. Cr. R. 176 , 15 S.W. 2d 628 , but has no application to a case in which the bar, in compliance with the statute, elected a special judge for the term in the absence of and because of the illness of the regular county judge.
The procedure before us is regular and the judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4901919. Public record. Not legal advice.