Beggs v. State
Decision Date | 12 April 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 15802.,15802. |
Citation | 60 S.W.2d 241 |
Parties | BEGGS v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Jack County; J. E. Carter, Judge.
W. A. Beggs was convicted for murder, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Nolan Queen, of Weatherford, and W. E. Myres, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
John P. Simpson and John D. McComb, both of Jacksboro, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Conviction for murder; punishment, fifteen years in the penitentiary.
The background and surroundings of this case are unusual. Deceased and his slayer were neighbors, living on the same road some two miles apart. According to the testimony of appellant and his family, the two men were friends, with no ill-feeling between them. The state's testimony suggests a different situation.
The oldest son of appellant lived about a quarter of a mile from appellant, and on the same road referred to. The killing took place at the home of said son Theodore Beggs, on the night of December 19, 1931. Theo and deceased, Ham, were both in Jacksboro that day. Theo testified that he saw Ham in town, and saw him about sundown help push Carney's car out of a ditch. Carney lived about a half mile north of Theo and on the same road which ran south past appellant's house. About 7:30 p. m., two hours after Theo sam Ham helping Carney, Ham was shot at Theo's house. The state showed that a few weeks before the killing Theo was found by Ham at a still in a pasture controlled by Ham, who evidently objected to the presence of the still and ordered Theo to "take that mess out of here," which Theo agreed to do. The state also showed by another witness that about said time appellant left his house and came down to his gate one moonlight night, when a man passed riding a paint horse such as Ham rode, appellant saying to the man "I thought you were George Ham." Accounting for his presence with a rifle at Theo's house on the night of the killing, appellant and his family said they heard from their house a holloing—which they thought came from Theo's house, and that appellant put his clothes on, took his gun, and went up there. The state put on the stand four of Theo's nearest neighbors, each of whom was at home at the time, and all said they heard no holloing. The body of Ham lay in Theo's house an hour or more before the officers got there after the killing. The officers found a pint bottle in Ham's front trouser pocket, partly filled with whisky. Theo's wife testified that she heard Ham tell her husband in a conversation out in the road shortly before the killing that he was drinking. The sheriff who came to the Beggs' home at once after notification of the killing, the undertaker who handled the body, and a number of disinterested witnesses who saw and talked with Ham in Jacksboro that afternoon, including Mrs. Carney, at whose home Ham was that night until a few moments before he was killed, all testified that they saw no indication that Ham was drinking, saw no whisky, and smelled none on his breath or body.
Appellant testified that Ham was on the porch of Theo's house when shot, and that he fell there. Ham's hat was found on the ground northeast from said porch some ten or twelve feet distant from it. Appellant testified that he was in the house near a bed when he fired his rifle; that Ham was coming from the northeast; that the house faced east. Appellant said Ham came on the north side of the porch, and advanced to the south side of the door, and about the time or a little before he ran against the door facing he, appellant, fired. Other testimony showed that the bullet entered in front near the right shoulder of deceased and made its exit in the back near the left shoulder, apparently a physical impossibility if the shooting occurred as appellant said it did.
Appellant and Theo testified that soon after appellant got to Theo's house a man from the road called "Hello, Pedro" (that seeming to be Theo's nickname). Theo testified that he went out, stepped around the corner of the house, and called "Hello." The man in the road said "Come out here." Theo said he told the man he could not come out there, and the man said, "If you can not come out here, I can come in there," to which Theo replied, "No, you had better go on and not come in here," or something of that sort. Theo then went back in the house. Appellant testified that he heard this conversation between Theo and the man in the road, and when his son came back in the house he told him he had better go and see about his mother. He testified that he told Theo he would stay there with his family. He said Theo left. We quote what appellant then said
Theo testified that when he got back in the house after his conversation with the man in the road, his father told him to go and see about his mother. We quote what he then said:
We find in appellant's testimony this also:
In another place appellant testified as follows:
Regarding what took place immediately before the shooting, appellant testified that he told the man to stop. It must be borne in mind that it was raining at the time and the night was dark. There was no light in the front room of the house where appellant was. Theo testified that he was a few steps from the porch at this time, and that he did not hear either appellant or the man who was shot say anything. Mrs. Theo was in the next room to that in which appellant was and testified that she did not hear the man say anything before the shooting. Both of these witnesses had made written statements on this point soon after the killing.
As we understand appellant, he asserts error in the refusal of his special charge No. 3, which was as follows: "You are further charged as a matter of law that if the defendant at the time he shot the deceased was on his own property and at the home of his son, and that the deceased came upon the defendant's property and into the home of the defendant's son over the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rogers v. State, 01-81-0597-CR
...561, 189 S.W.2d 875 (Tex.Cr.App.1945); Eckerman v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 563, 89 S.W.2d 999 (Tex.Cr.App.1935); Beggs v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 60 S.W.2d 241 (Tex.Cr.App.1933). These cases were specifically noted in Sledge as being contrary to the holding therein, but they were neither effec......
-
Sledge v. State
...case is Pellerin v. State, 454 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), holding that the evidence did not raise the issue.3 In Beggs v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 60 S.W.2d 241 (1933), this court held that the evidence did not raise the defense of habitation and distinguished Louder v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.......
-
Myers v. State
... ... This case, as I view it, comes squarely within the rule expressed in Ross v. State, 75 Tex.Cr.R. 59, 170 S.W. 305; Richardson v. State, 91 Tex.Cr.R. 318, 239 S.W. 218, 219, 20 A.L.R. 1249; Tait v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 119, 260 S.W. 584; Beggs" v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 60 S.W.2d 241; and Ashworth v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 561, 189 S.W.2d 875, which hold that the evidence there presented raised the issue of self defense ... but did not raise the issue of defense of habitation ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Johnson v. State
...in failing to charge on the right of the appellant to protect his home. Ross v. State, 75 Tex.Cr.R. 59, 170 S.W. 305; Beggs v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 60 S.W.2d 241. Complaint is made of the court's failure to charge on self-defense against a milder attack as provided in Art. 1224, Vernon's......