Boles v. State
| Decision Date | 24 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 8847.) |
| Citation | 279 S.W. 261 |
| Parties | BOLES et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Shelby County; Chas. L. Brachfield, Judge.
Calvin and Claude Boles were convicted of manslaughter, and they appeal. Reversed and remanded on rehearing.
Sanders & Sanders and Davis & Davis, all of Center, for appellants.
Major T. Bell, Dist. Atty., of Tenaha, Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
The appellants were tried and convicted in the district court of Shelby county of manslaughter, and Calvin Boles' punishment was assessed at five years in the penitentiary, and Claude Boles' punishment was assessed at two years in the penitentiary.
We find a motion of the state in this case to strike out the statement of facts, alleging that no duplicate of same was ever filed in the district clerk's office as required by law. It becomes unnecessary for us to pass on this motion at this time, for the reason that, upon an inspection of what purports to be a statement of facts filed in this court by the appellants, we find that same is not signed by the trial judge who tried the case, and of course, under such circumstances, we are unauthorized to consider said statement of facts in any particular.
The record discloses proper indictment, charge of the court, verdict of the jury, judgment and sentence of the appellants, and, no fundamental errors appearing therein, we are forced to the conclusion that this case must be affirmed. Of course, we observe many questions raised by appellants to the action of the trial court, but without a statement of facts we could not determine whether same constitutes any error or not.
For the reasons above stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed; and it is accordingly so ordered.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the court.
On Rehearing.
The appellants, Calvin and Claude Boles, were jointly indicted with L. D. Cammack and Elbert Boles for the offense of murdering W. R. Cook, and said appellants, after severance, were convicted in the district court of Shelby county of manslaughter, and Calvin Boles' punishment assessed at five years, and Claude Boles' punishment assessed at two years, in the penitentiary.
This court refused to consider the statement of facts in this case at the last term, on account of same not being signed by the trial judge, since which time a proper showing has been made, which authorizes us now to consider same.
It was the contention of the state that all of the defendants named in the indictment had entered into an agreement or conspiracy to kill the deceased, under the pretext that the deceased and the sister of the said Cammack, wife of Calvin Boles, had been unduly and criminally intimate, and all of them were present and acting together at the time of the homicide.
It was the contention of the appellant Calvin Boles that his wife had informed him, the night preceding the morning of the killing, that she had carnal intercourse with the deceased, and, believing said statement to be true, he killed the deceased upon the first meeting thereof, and also by his testimony injected into the case the issue of the necessary defense of his brother, appellant Claude Boles. The record discloses that, at the time the appellant Calvin Boles shot and killed the deceased, Claude Boles and the deceased were engaged in a fight, and the latter had called to his wife to bring him his gun, and that she was approaching the scene of the difficulty with a gun just before the shooting occurred.
It was the contention of Claude Boles that he knew nothing of the intention of Calvin Boles to kill the deceased, and had no understanding with any of the other parties, or knowledge, to the effect that they intended to kill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Batten v. State
...She also requested additional challenges. See Acosta v. State, 522 S.W.2d 528 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). In Boles v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 634, 279 S.W. 261 (1926), two defendants were jointly tried for murder. The trial court limited the defendants to a total of fifteen peremptory challenges in all......
-
Goode v. State
...jointly tried defendants because the trial court had limited them to a total of fifteen peremptory challenges together. Boles v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 634, 279 S.W. 261 (Commission of Appeals 1925). Since then, this Court has consistently held that it is reversible error to limit a capital d......
-
Hall v. State, 14287.
...p. 103, note 24; Rosso v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 10, 267 S. W. 1116; Gifford v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 7, 274 S. W. 149; Boles v. State, 102 Tex. Cr. R. 634, 279 S. W. 261. When the statement of facts was filed in this court on February 28, 1931, it did not bear the certificate of approval b......
-
Boles v. State
...Boles was convicted of manslaughter; punishment, three years in the penitentiary. A former appeal of this case is reported in 102 Tex. Cr. R. 634, 279 S. W. 261. Under a plea of not guilty, the appellant introduced evidence tending to show that the killing was in self-defense and in defense......