Stanley v. State
| Decision Date | 23 February 1898 |
| Citation | 44 S.W. 519 |
| Parties | STANLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Hill county; J. M. Hall, Judge.
Nuck Stanley was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.
McKinnon & Carlton, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of manslaughter, and his punishment assessed at four years in the penitentiary; hence this appeal.
Appellant, by his first bill of exceptions, calls in question the action of the court in admitting certain testimony in connection with an altercation that occurred between appellant and deceased about 20 minutes before the homicide. This altercation was the origin of the transaction, and almost a part of the res gestæ of the homicide itself. It was the cause of the killing, and the language used between the parties on that occasion was certainly admissible. This appears to have been the extent of the court's ruling; but, if the court had admitted all that had occurred between the parties at that transaction, there would have been no error. It was competent for the state, in the cross-examination of the defendant's witness Pat Dillard, to show by him that he had previously been convicted of a felony, and sent to the penitentiary, as evidence going to his credit. There was no error in the court failing to charge the jury as to the presumption arising from the use of deadly weapons by the deceased, as is provided by the Penal Code of 1895. The court gave a charge on self-defense, embracing all that appellant could ask for on this subject. If deceased made any attack on the appellant at all, it was with a pistol; and the court instructed the jury, if deceased made an attack on the defendant, and it reasonably appeared to him that his life was in danger, or he was in danger of serious bodily harm, that he would have a right to kill deceased. Nor did the court commit any error in the charge given on self-defense, and the right of appellant to continue shooting his assailant, and to pursue him as long as necessary in order to protect himself. The jury are distinctly told that appellant had a right, if attacked by deceased, to pursue him, and to continue shooting until he believed himself out of danger, but that he had no right to pursue and to shoot deceased after he believed that he was no longer in danger. The court not only gave this charge, but gave a charge requested by defendant on the same subject, to the effect that, if deceased made an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Muldrew v. State
...was unquestionably the cause of the deceased and others attempting to put him out of the room and appellant killing deceased. Stanley v. State, 44 S. W. 519; Elmore v. State, 78 S. W. 520; Moore v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 234, 20 S. W. 563; v. State, 19 Tex. App. 521, 53 Am. Rep. 387; Cox v. ......
-
Flewellen v. State
...as applicable after he began shooting at deceased. He cites and relies upon Wilson v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 527, 81 S. W. 34, and Stanley v. State, 44 S. W. 519. In this Wilson Case this court "The court also charged with reference to abandonment of the difficulty by deceased. The facts did......
-
Lamb v. State
...v. State, 30 Tex. App. 420, 17 S. W. 1070, 28 Am. St. Rep. 930; Tooney v. State, 8 Tex. App. 452; Elmore v. State, 78 S. W. 520; Stanley v. State, 44 S. W. 519; Ency. of Ev. p. 615; Renn v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 639, 143 S. W. Second. Appellant by his cross-examination of the state's witnes......
-
Girtman v. State
...v. State, 30 Tex. App. 420, 17 S. W. 1070, 28 Am. St. Rep. 930; Tooney v. State, 8 Tex. App. 452; Elmore v. State, 78 S. W. 520; Stanley v. State, 44 S. W. 519; Ency. of Ev. p. 615; Renn v. State, 143 S. W. Appellant testified. On cross-examination, for the purpose of affecting his credibil......