Ross v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Morris v. State

    251 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. Crim. App. 1952)   Cited 21 times

    Bill of exception No. 4 complains that there had been a systematic discrimination in Harris County in the selection of petit jurors through the use of peremptory challenges by the prosecuting officers. This same contention has been decided adversely to appellant by this Court in McMurrin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 239 S.W.2d 632, and Ross v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 246 S.W.2d 884, in each of which cases certiorari was refused by the Supreme Court of the United States, McMurrin v. Texas, 342 U.S. 874, 72 S.Ct. 115, and Ross v. Texas, Tex.Cr.App., 246 S.W.2d 884. Bill of exception No. 5 contains the entire testimony of the witness Maes and numerous objections thereto.

  2. May v. State

    738 S.W.2d 261 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)   Cited 54 times
    Holding that disproportionate representation in single panel does not demonstrate systematic exclusion of distinctive groups in violation of Sixth Amendment

    Ross v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. R., 246 S.W.2d 884, 886 (1952). Point of error ten is overruled.

  3. Turner v. State

    462 S.W.2d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970)   Cited 28 times

    The second ground of error is that the State systematically excluded black veniremen from service as jurors in his case. At the hearing on motion for a new trial, the State exercised only peremptory challenges and was not required to give his reasons for using them, Ross v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. R., 246 S.W.2d 884. However, out of an abundance of caution, the prosecutor was called as a witness and gave his reasons for having challenged each of the veniremen about which he was questioned.

  4. Barry v. State

    305 S.W.2d 580 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957)   Cited 15 times

    The appellant had no vested right to have Juror Broadnax, and the State had the statutory right to peremptorily excuse 15 veniremen. This is so because the State and an accused have a right to reject but never have a right to select any particular juror. McMurrin v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 434, 238 S.W.2d 632, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 874, 72 S.Ct. 115, 96 L.Ed. 657 and Ross v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 371, 246 S.W.2d 884, certiorari denied 343 U.S. 969, 72 S.Ct. 1067, 96 L.Ed. 1365. There is nothing in the bill of exception or in the record to show that after Broadnax was excused the State used another peremptory challenge.