Banks v. State
| Decision Date | 28 January 1888 |
| Citation | 7 S.W. 327 |
| Parties | BANKS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Chambers county; E. HOBBY, Judge.
Chilis Banks was convicted of the crime of murder, and sentenced to be hung. Defendant appealed.
William Chambers, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
For the murder of Martha Henderson, the appellant, Chilis Banks, was tried and convicted of murder of the first degree, with the death penalty awarded against him. In arrest of the judgment, the following motion was presented and overruled: "That the indictment is fatally defective in this; that it does not charge that defendant killed and murdered Martha Henderson." The indictment alleges that defendant "did, with malice aforethought, kill Martha Henderson by shooting her with a pistol." It is the settled doctrine of this court that to allege that the killing was with "malice aforethought," is equivalent to alleging that the homicide was committed with express "malice aforethought." This being the case, this indictment, in legal effect, charges that defendant did, with express malice aforethought, kill Martha Henderson by shooting her with a pistol. The question raised and insisted upon by the appellant is that it must be alleged that the accused did "murder" the deceased. We hold it sufficient in this respect if the acts, elements, and intentions which compose the offense are set forth in plain and intelligible language. Hence, conclusions from the acts and intentions need not be alleged. Applying this rule to the indictment under discussion, it will be found amply sufficient. Why? Because it is impossible for a person to shoot and kill, with his express malice, a human being, and not be guilty of murder in the first degree. Willson, Crim. Forms, 388, and notes. The record contains neither a statement of the facts, nor a bill of exceptions, nor have we the aid of a brief for the appellant. Then there is nothing to be revised by this court except the sufficiency of the indictment, and the correctness of the charge of the court. The indictment is good, and, in the absence of a statement of facts, we find no error in the charge requiring the reversal of the judgment, and it is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People of Territory of Utah v. Davis
... ... Affirmed ... Messrs ... Warner and Kenward, for the appellant ... Cited ... Bishop's New Crim. Law, § 799; State v ... Brown, 21 Kans. 38; Fonts v. State, 8 Ohio St ... 98; Kaim v. State, 8 Ohio St. 306; Keenan v ... Com., 44 Pa. St. 55; Snyder v. State, ... 248; ... People v. Murphy, 39 Cal. 52; People v ... Cronin, 34 Cal. 200; People v. Matlin, 47 Cal ... 102; People v. Davis, 73 Cal. 355; Banks v ... State, 7 S.W. 327; Ruther v. State, 9 S.W. 69; ... State v. Smith, 38 Kans. 194 (overruling State ... v. Brown, 21 Kans. 38); Graves v ... ...
-
Henderson v. State, 16365.
...there is some fundamental error manifestly injurious to the accused on trial. See Henderson v. State, 20 Tex. App. 304; Banks v. State, 24 Tex. App. 559, 7 S. W. 327, and other cases cited in Branch's Ann. Tex. P. C., pp. 309-310. In no case coming to our attention has there been a reversal......
-
Collins v. State
...in the indictment, we will presume that the court charged the law, and all the law, applicable to the evidence adduced. Banks v. State, 24 Tex. App. 559, 7 S. W. 327, and cases cited in section 846 in White's Ann. Code of Crim. The judgment is affirmed. ...