Beaty v. State

• Decision Date: 23 February 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 10360.)
• Parties: BEATY v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

291 S.W. 552

BEATY v. STATE.

(No. 10360.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

February 23, 1927.

Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tarrant County; Geo. E. Hosey, Judge.

Mike Beaty was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Baskin, Eastus & Greines, and Sam S. Baskin, all of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Sam D. Stinson, State's Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State's Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.

HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for manslaughter; punishment being two years in the penitentiary.

The person killed was Horace Pettis. The killing occurred at the house of Effie Noble. All parties concerned are negroes. It is undisputed that appellant made two trips to the house of Effie Noble on the night of the killing. It was his contention that he had been living with Effie, and that his clothes were at her house; that hard feelings had arisen between him and deceased because of the latter's attention to Effie; that he had secured a room at another place, and had gone to Effie's home to get his clothes. Effie denied than any improper relations had existed between her and appellant. She claimed that he had engaged a room at her house, but had not come to occupy it, and that she had rented the room to another party; that, upon the occasion of appellant's first visit to the house on the night of the homicide, he cursed and abused her on account of letting the room go; that when he left she told him not to come back. He did return in about 15 minutes, and knocked upon the back door. The testimony of the state's witnesses was to the effect that Effie told him he could not come in; that he tore the screen door off, and pushed against the door to the room until it flew open, at which time deceased picked up a stick of pine stovewood, and struck appellant on the head, and closed the door, whereupon appellant fired two shots through the door, both striking deceased in the head.

Appellant's version of the matter is that, when he knocked, he was invited in, but, as he opened the door he was struck on the head by some one; that at the time he did not know who it was; that the blow inflicted a wound from which blood flowed freely and blinded and dazed him; that at the time he fired the shots he did not know who his assailant was, and did not learn until afterwards that he had killed deceased. A more detailed statement of the evidence is not called for.

Appellant requested a charge which would have told the jury that, if Petties had made threats to take the life of, or to inflict serious bodily injury upon, appellant, then the latter "had the right under the law to arm himself for the purpose of defending himself." The court properly refused this charge couched in the broad language employed. If the court had charged on provoking the difficulty, or by his instructions had in any other way placed a limitation on appellant's right of self-defense, it would have been appropriate under the facts to have advised the jury that, if appellant went to the place where the killing occurred to get his clothes, and...