Black v. State

• Decision Date: 18 December 1901
• Citation: 65 S.W. 906
• Parties: BLACK v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

65 S.W. 906

BLACK v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

December 18, 1901.

Appeal from district court, Young county; A. H. Carrigan, Judge.

William Black was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Reversed.

John C. Kay, R. F. Arnold, C. W. Johnson, and John M. Duncan, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for life. There are various questions suggested for revision, some of which have no merit; and others should not occur upon another trial, as they relate to the conduct of the district attorney in examining witnesses before the jury. We wish again to say that prosecuting officers should keep in view the provisions of our constitution and statutes in discharging their official duties in the prosecution of cases before juries. An accused is entitled to a fair trial, and a fair legal trial means a prosecution under the provisions of law. The constitution and legislation in this state have set forth the rights of persons accused of crime, and provided rules, methods, and means by which they shall be tried. The prosecution owes a duty as well to the accused as to the commonwealth in the trial of cases. It is not their duty, nor are they called upon, to secure conviction by any other means or methods than those set forth by law. A party is guilty only when he violates the law, and he must be tried only by the provisions of law. Whatever may be the moral standing or status of an accused, there is no legal offense until one of our criminal statutes has been violated; and there ought to be no legal conviction until obtained under the rules prescribed by law. The trial courts and prosecuting officers are under as binding obligation to protect persons accused of crime from illegal conviction as they are to see that the law is enforced. Their duties are of a public nature, and demand the upholding of the law, as intended by our written constitution and the acts of legislation.

It is contended the evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction. After a careful review of the testimony, we believe this position is well taken. Without going into a detailed statement of the evidence, it is in substance shown that appellant and W. J. Huff (deceased's father) met on the day of and prior to the homicide as entire strangers. They met in a saloon and began drinking. This continued until between sunset and dark, when appellant carried Huff to his room at the residence of Mr. Farley, and requested supper for both. While Farley was building the fire preparatory to cooking supper, deceased entered the room where his father and appellant were, by invitation of appellant, the father being very much intoxicated at the time. When deceased came in, the father was lying on the bed, apparently asleep. He aroused his father, and a quarrel ensued between the father and appellant, and words ran high. Directly the door of the room opened, and as they were entering the hallway, appellant was heard to say, "Go on off; I don't care anything about your money." Deceased said, "Well!" and he and his father started down the hallway towards the front of the house. Appellant secured a small Winchester rifle from another room, and which was the property of Farley, and ordered them to go on off, and followed to the front gallery. Just what occurred there is left in doubt, except from the testimony of appellant himself. He says the quarrel continued, he ordering them off, the elder Huff cursing and abusing him very much; and, after reaching the gate, the elder Huff started back to where appellant was standing on the gallery, threatening him and making a demonstration as if to draw a pistol or some weapon from the waistband of his pants;...