# Jackson v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · February 16, 1966 · 403 S.W.2d 145

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776897

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert Eddie Louis JACKSON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** February 16, 1966
- **Citations:** 403 S.W.2d 145; 1966 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1156
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by McDONALD
- **Judges:** Belcher, McDonald
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9776897

## Opinion text

AMENDED OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
McDONALD, Presiding Judge.
Appellant re-urges the contention that Sheriff Humphreys’ association with the jury constituted a denial of due process of law and requires a reversal of the conviction, under the decision in Turner v. State of Louisiana, supra.
In his motion, he insists that any communication with the jury by the sheriff was in violation of Art. 671, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., and that under the decisions of this court there was a presumption of injury which was not rebutted by the state.
He also insists that the sheriff’s association with the jury presents reversible error under the decision of this court in Stecher v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 373 S.W.2d 255 .
We have again reviewed the record in the light of such contentions, and remain convinced that no reversible error is shown.
*150 The sheriff was not an unauthorized person under the provisions of Art. 671, supra. No presumption of injury would arise from his association with the jury. Gandy v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 140 S.W.2d 182 ; Holder v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 55 , 143 S.W.2d 613 .
Stecher v. State, supra, involved a communication between the official court bailiff and the jury in which the bailiff answered a question propounded by the jurors. The communication in that case was an unauthorized instruction to the jury and constituted error. No such facts are presented in the case at bar.
We remain convinced that, under the authorities cited in our original opinion, the court did not err in permitting the witness Albert Bowie to testify, over appellant’s objection, that he was an incompetent.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776897. Public record. Not legal advice.