96 Tex. Cr. R. 473, 258 S.W. 473 (1924)
Melvin Johnson stood trial for murder in the District Court of Liberty County.1 The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment and assessed his punishment at death by hanging until dead.2
Johnson appealed the judgment of conviction. The judgment was affirmed on the 4th day of April, 1923, and the mandate issued on the 22nd day of June, 1923.3 These steps concluded the appellate process.
On the 23rd day of August, 1923, the date of execution was fixed by sentence entered in the District Court of Liberty County.4
Johnson applied for a writ of habeas corpus seeking discharge. The application was based on the discrepancy between the verdict specifying death by hanging and the sentence specifying death by electrocution.5 At the time of trial, state law prescribed hanging as the mode of execution.6 The Thirty-eighth Legislature, in its Second Called Session, changed the mode to electrocution by Chapter 51 of the Acts.7
Whether the applicant should be discharged by writ of habeas corpus because the verdict specified death by hanging while the sentence specified death by electrocution after the legislature changed the method of execution?8
The jury's authority extends only to determining the defendant's guilt and whether the punishment should be death or imprisonment.9 Any reference in the verdict to the specific method of execution is surplusage that does not affect the validity of the verdict.10 The mode of execution is fixed by law at the time of the verdict and remains subject to legislative change without violating the ex post facto clause.11
No. Melvin Johnson was tried for murder in the District Court of Liberty County, where the jury returned a verdict of guilty and assessed punishment at death by hanging until dead.12 The judgment was affirmed on April 4, 1923, the mandate issued on June 22, 1923, and a sentence was entered on August 23, 1923, fixing execution by electrocution under the new statute. Because the jury had no authority to prescribe the method of execution, the reference to hanging in the verdict was surplusage, and the legislative change in the mode of execution applied without offending constitutional limitations.13
The application for the writ of habeas corpus is refused.14