Johnson v. State

Decision Date25 October 1890
PartiesJOHNSON v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from district court, Limestone county; J. FARRAR, Special Judge.

At the March term, 1888, of the district court of Limestone county, the appellant and one Jeff Wood were indicted jointly for the murder of Elizabeth Rucker by poison, to-wit: "That the said Tilman Johnson and Jeff Wood did then and there willfully poison, and caused to be poisoned, a certain drink, to-wit, certain water then and there contained in a certain bucket, at the house of H. P. Rucker, where said Eliazbeth Rucker then and there resided, by then and there wilfully mingling and causing to be mingled with the water so contained in said bucket certain poison called strychnine, and a certain poisonous and noxious substance to the grand jury unknown, with intent," etc.; "and the said Elizabeth Rucker did then and there, not knowing that said water was so poisoned, drink and swallow a quantity thereof; and the said Elizabeth Rucker drank of the poison aforesaid so mingled in the water aforesaid, and by her swallowed as aforesaid, did, on the 7th day of March, 1888, in the county aforesaid, die," etc. The theory of the state was that the poison was intended to be administered to H. P. Rucker, the brother of the deceased, with whom the deceased lived. The proof showed that the defendant was the nephew of one Charles Johnson, and had been partly reared by, and at the time of the offense was living with, the said Charles Johnson. For the purpose of showing motive, the state was permitted to introduce in evidence certain indictments charging Charles Johnson with the forgery of the name of H. P. Rucker, which indictments, pending at the time of this offense, showed H. P. Rucker to be the main witness for the state, and a record of the court showing that subsequent to this offense the said Charles Johnson was convicted upon one of said indictments. The charge of the court restricted the evidence to the purpose for which it was admitted. Subsequently the prosecution as to Wood was dismissed, and on September 5, 1890, the appellant was tried and convicted, and awarded a life term in the penitentiary.

Jackson & Rucker and T. J. Gibson, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.

WILLSON, J.

It was not error to admit in evidence against the defendant the indictments and record mentioned in defendant's bill of exception. This testimony was admissible to show motive for the commission of the murder, and to this purpose the testimony was restricted by the charge of the court. Willson, Crim. St., § 1044.

It is charged in the indictment that the murder was committed by means of poison mingled with water in a bucket. Over objections made by defendant, testimony was admitted tending to show that poison was at the same time mingled with coffee in a kettle, and that deceased also partook of the coffee, and that it was the poison in the coffee that caused her death. The court, with reference to this evidence, instructed the jury, in effect, that if deceased died from poison it was immaterial whether the poison was administered to her in water contained in a bucket or in coffee contained in a kettle We are of the opinion that the court did not err in admitting said testimony or in giving said instruction. This is an instance in which proof of the substance of the issue only is required. The substance of the issue here is, was the death of the deceased caused by administering poison to her? It is immaterial how the poison was administered, whether in water, coffee, or in any other manner. The manner of its administration is not descriptive of the offense, and need not be proved strictly, as alleged in the indictment. Douglass v. State, 26 Tex. App. 109, 9 S. W. Rep. 489, and authorities there cited.

On the trial, the defendant offered to prove by a witness that, immediately before defendant and Jeff Wood went to the house of deceased, on the evening when the poisoning is alleged to have occurred, said Wood...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 cases
  • The State v. Young
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 31, 1894
    ...472; Com. v. Trefethen, 31 N.E. 961; Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285, 36 L.Ed. 706, 12 S.Ct. 909; Price v. State, 72 Ga. 441; Johnson v. State, 15 S.W. 647. likewise and on the same grounds, was the evidence of Edward Burblinger competent, not as evidence of the facts or intentions declar......
  • Regittano v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 8, 1922
    ...are not harmonious. Powell's Case, 28 Tex. App. 398, 13 S. W. 599, apparently supports the state's theory, while Johnson's Case, 29 Tex. App. 150, 15 S. W. 647, apparently supports the position of the appellant. These two cases were written by the same judge, and it may be that in the respe......
  • Wright v. People
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • August 5, 1946
    ...257 S.W. 906, wherein it was noted that the authorities were not harmonious, and Powell v. State, 28 Tex.App. 393, 398, 13 S.W. 599, and the Johnson case mentioned particularly as apparently supporting different positions. In the Johnson case [29 Tex.App. 150, 15 S.W. 648] there was reversa......
  • State v. Young
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 31, 1894
    ...v. Trefethen, (Mass.) 31 N. E. 961; Insurance Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U. S. 285, 12 Sup. Ct. 909; Price v. State, 72 Ga. 441; State v. Johnson, (Tex. App.) 15 S. W. 647. So, likewise, and on the same grounds, was the evidence of Edward Burblinger competent, not as evidence of the facts or inten......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Defenses and special evidentiary charges
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Jury Charges. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • May 4, 2021
    ...Tellez v. State , 162 Tex.Crim. 456, 286 S.W.2d 154 (1955). Cause of death may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Johnson v. State , 15 S.W. 647 (Tex.Crim.App. 1890). Expert witnesses may give their opinions and tell what the deceased died of, in their opinion; that is, they may state the......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Jury Charges. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • May 4, 2021
    ...Jennings v. State 302 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) 1:375 Jimenez v. State 32 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) 1:310 Johnson v. State 15 S.W. 647 (Tex. Ct. App. 1890) 3:490 Johnson v. State 278 S.W. 213 (Tex. Crim. App. 1925) 11:50 Johnson v. State 164 S.W.2d 702 (Tex. Crim. App. 1942)......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT