Alarcon v. State

• Decision Date: 22 November 1905
• Citation: 90 S.W. 179
• Parties: ALARCON v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

90 S.W. 179

ALARCON v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 22, 1905.

Appeal from District Court, Brown County; Jno. W. Goodwin, Judge.

Mercario Alarcon was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.

See 83 S. W. 1115.

Rehearing denied December 13, 1905.

Jenkins & McCartney, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROOKS, J.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree, and his punishment fixed at five years' confinement in the penitentiary.

In motion for new trial appellant raised many objections to the charge of the court. We have carefully read the charge of the court in the light of said motion and the brief of appellant. Without reviewing seriatum the various objections urged by appellant, in our opinion, the charge of the court is not subject to the criticisms of appellant. The charge, taken as a whole, is a proper presentation of the law of murder in the second degree, manslaughter, and self-defense applicable to the facts of this case. Nor do we think the court erred in refusing to give appellant's special charges.

By bill of exceptions it is made to appear that appellant objected to the introduction in evidence of the knife with which appellant stabbed deceased; the same being a butcher knife, with a blade about five inches long. His objections are that there was no issue which said knife was calculated to prove, and the exhibition of such knife was calculated to arouse the prejudice of the jury and inflame their minds against appellant. The court appends this explanation to the bill: "Deceased, from the evidence, came to his death by a knife wound. The evidence showed the knife in question was found near the scene of the tragedy. The court permitted the production of the knife for the purpose of identification by witnesses, and for the purpose of proving its length and width. At the time the evidence was offered defendant had not testified, and had not identified the knife found and exhibited as the one he used in cutting deceased, as he afterwards did." We know of no rule of law that would exclude the introduction of the weapon with which the homicide had been committed.

The second bill shows that Lucian Holbert, witness for the state, was permitted to show a scar made upon him by defendant in the fight in which deceased was killed. Appellant objected to the exhibition of said scar, because there was no issue in this case which such scar tended to prove, and because the same...