Cain v. State
Citation | 154 Tex.Crim. 284,226 S.W.2d 640 |
Decision Date | 18 January 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 24599,24599 |
Parties | CAIN v. STATE. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Polk Shelton, Austin, for appellant.
R. J. (Bob) Long, District Attorney, Austin, Thomas D. Blackwell, Asst. Dist. Atty., Austin, George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of murder with malice, and his punishment was assessed at eighteen years in the penitentiary, for the killing of Daniel J. McMillan.
The facts from the standpoint of the state and quoted from the state's brief are these:
The evidence from the standpoint of appellant discloses previous trouble between appellant and deceased, including threats made by the deceased against appellant. All such differences and difficulties were apparently due to jealousy and to their marriages and relations with Roberta.
Appellant testified that on the evening of November 18, 1948, he called the Heath residence by telephone, and asked for Roberta; that Mrs. Heath answered and told him Roberta was not there and hung up; that he called again and the deceased answered and said, 'Its none of your business whether she is here or not.' That 30 or 35 minutes later he went to the Heath residence to see if Roberta was there, and to see 'what the score was.' That he pulled the latch off the screen door and went in. That he saw Roberta there. That she was on the bed with her head in deceased's lap. That after entering the house he saw the deceased through a window between the rooms, as he was raising off the bed with a small gun in his hand. That the pistol was pointed in his direction and deceased fired. That he then shot deceased because he was scared deceased would kill him.
The court, in his charge to the jury, submitted the law of self-defense but qualified appellant's right of self-defense by instructing the jury on the law of provoking the difficulty. Also the charge contained an instruction on the presumption from the use of a deadly weapon by deceased.
Appellant excepted to the charge of the court and directed exceptions particularly to these instructions.
In paragraph 9c the jury was instructed as follows: 'You are further charged that if you believe from the evidence that the deceased fired a pistol at defendant, the law presumes that he intended to kill the defendant.'
Appellant excepted to such charge as not properly instructing the jury 'of the facts in this case,' and embodied in his exception a request that the jury be further instructed that 'when a homicide takes place and the deceased has a deadly weapon the nature of which being a pistol that the evidence raises the issue of the use of the deadly weapon by the deceased, and that it is an absolute presumption that the deceased intended to use the deadly weapon to take the life of the defendant.'
Appellant was not entitled to such a charge. Mere possession of a deadly weapon by the deceased does not raise the presumption provided by Art. 1223, P.C. It is the use of such weapon in making an assault that raises the presumption, not its mere possession.
Appellant further excepted to such charge on the ground that same was upon the weight of the evidence, too restrictive to the facts in the case and placed the burden of proof upon the defendant.
The charge as given states the law as applied to the testimony as given by the defendant. We cannot agree with appellant's contention that the court should instruct the jury as to an assault by presenting a pistol where the testimony requiring such charge is to the effect that the assault by deceased on appellant was made by firing a pistol.
In connection with, and as a limitation on the law of self-defense, the court charged the jury as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doyle v. State
...should not be limited to parts of the charge standing alone. Daniel v. State, 486 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Cain v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 284, 226 S.W.2d 640 (1950). In McCary v. State, 477 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), we were confronted with the contention that the following charge rem......
-
Flores v. State
...charge should be viewed as a whole, and review should not be limited to parts of the charge standing alone. Cain v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 284, 226 S.W.2d 640 (Tex.Cr.App.1950)." Jackson, 591 S.W.2d at 825. The Court reviewed the law section of the charge as well as additional portions of the......
-
Simmons v. State
...charge should be viewed as a whole, and review should not be limited to parts of the charge standing alone." Cain v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 284, 226 S.W.2d 640 (Tex.Cr.App.1950). See also Jackson v. State, 591 S.W.2d 820 The crux of appellant's ground of error is the failure of the charge to ......
-
Porter v. State
..."The charge should be viewed as a whole and review should not be limited to parts of the charge standing alone. Cain v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 284, 226 S.W.2d 640 (1950)." It has been the rule for many years that the omission of scienter elements in applying the law to the facts will not rend......