Bradshaw v. State
| Decision Date | 08 March 1899 |
| Citation | 50 S.W. 359 |
| Parties | BRADSHAW v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Erath county; J. S. Straughan, Judge.
Gordon Bradshaw was convicted of negligent homicide in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.
Martin & George, for appellant, W, J. & Eli Oxford and Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of negligent homicide of the first degree, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $1,000, and he prosecutes this appeal.
Appellant assigns the following errors, upon which he asks this court to reverse this cause: (1) Because the court erred in submitting to the jury the question of negligent homicide of the first degree, inasmuch as there was no evidence to authorize the submission of such issue; (2) because the verdict of the jury is contrary to, and unsupported by, the evidence, inasmuch as there was no evidence whatever to show that the defendant was guilty of negligent homicide; (3) the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial upon defendant's motion, inasmuch as said motion raised the issue presented in the first and second assignments of error.
The evidence for the state, if believed in toto by the jury, would have made appellant guilty of a cruel murder, in the first degree, of his wife; the motive for the murder being in order to secure the insurance upon her life. The testimony of W. J. Bearden, his wife, and little boy, is, in substance, as follows: Appellant and his wife stayed at the house of Bearden on the night before the homicide. The next morning, about 11 o'clock, appellant made preparations to leave in a buggy. The horse was harnessed and hitched to the buggy When appellant and his wife were ready to depart, Bearden, his wife, little daughter, and little boy all came to the buggy with them. Appellant's wife told all the party good-by. While appellant was unhitching the horse, appellant's wife kissed the members of the Bearden family, and then Bearden asked her if she was not going to kiss him. She said, "Yes," and kissed Bearden. Appellant then walked up behind her, caught her by both arms, turned her around very abruptly, and put her in the buggy, and then turned and said something about his gun. He had left his gun in the house. He went to the house after the gun, and when he returned with it he was holding the gun in his left hand. He told the Bearden family good-by, and turned and walked to the buggy. After he got to the buggy, he went in between the wheels, and caught the gun with his right hand, brought it up very quickly, and when it got up he made a quick lunge with it, and it fired. Appellant's wife was sitting on the left and west side of the buggy, and the horse's head was pointed in a northerly direction.
The foregoing is, in substance, the testimony of all the eyewitnesses to the shooting. As indicated above, there was a great deal of testimony introduced on the question of motive and probable cause of the killing, which, taken altogether, would indicate murder in the first degree. The defense of appellant was that the killing was purely accidental. Appellant admits, however, that the gun was "tricky," as he terms it, and likely to go off when least expected. He introduced various parties who testified to this fact. Appellant also testified to the fact that the gun had been discharged the evening before,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Combs v. State
...a charge on negligent homicide in the first and second degree, and in support of this contention refers us to the case of Bradshaw v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 50 S. W. 359. The Bradshaw Case is, in its facts, very much like the case at bar, and is authority for the proposition that if the cour......
-
Guerra v. State
...an indictment in the usual form charging murder for the reason that the elements of negligent homicide are not alleged. Bradshaw v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 50 S. W. 359, is direct authority against such contention. Article 695, C. C. P. 1925, provides that the offense of murder includes all t......
-
THE BURDENS OF THE EXCESSIVE FINES CLAUSE.
...v. Huff, 40 N.W. 720, 722 (Iowa 1888) ("It is claimed that the punishment is excessive. We do not so regard it."); Bradshaw v. State, 50 S.W. 359, 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 1899) ("We do not think the verdict of the jury is at all (100.) See, e.g., State v. Price, 39 N.W. 291, 293 (Iowa 1888). (......