Carroll v. State
| Decision Date | 08 May 1901 |
| Citation | 62 S.W. 1061 |
| Parties | CARROLL v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, El Paso county; A. M. Walthall, Judge.
Benjamin F. Carroll was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Reversed.
M. W. Stanton, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for life. This is a companion case to Kipper v. State (decided at the present term) 62 S. W. 420. Motions to quash the indictment and special venire were not made on the trial of this case, as was done in Kipper's Case, supra. The charge of the court, however, is in the same condition with reference to the question of murder committed in the perpetration of burglary, and for that reason the judgment herein must be reversed. Kipper v. State, supra. Criticisms were urged to the court's charge in regard to the law applicable to alibi and the testimony of accomplices, and some elaborate instructions were asked by appellant. We think the charges as given by the court were sufficient, clearly presenting the law applicable to both issues. It is true the court might have charged the jury that the witness was an accomplice, as it is an unquestioned fact, but it is not reversible error for the court not to do so. The court submitted it as an issue of fact. The questions raised on motion for new trial, in regard to the misconduct of the jury in different ways, will not occur upon another trial, and it is therefore not necessary to discuss them. For the error in the court's charge in regard to the question of burglary, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Creech v. State
...to leave it to the jury to say whether a witness is an accomplice, though such fact be apparent. Dill v. State, 28 S. W. 950; Carroll v. State, 62 S. W. 1061; Ransom v. State, 49 S. W. 582; Zollicoffer v. State, 16 Tex. App. 317; Hankins v. State, 47 S. W. 993." It is a well-established rul......
-
Gordon v. State
...Miss. 990, 18 So. 431; Watkins v. State, 134 Miss. 211, 98 So. 537; Commonwealth v. Phelps, 192 Mass. 591, 78 N.E. 741; Carroll v. State (Tex. Cr. App.), 62 S.W. 1061; State v. Hier, 78 Vt. 488, 63 A. Affirmed; sentence to be executed on Thursday, the 11th day of July, 1940. SPECIALLY CONCU......
-
Bohannon v. State
...to leave it to the jury to say whether a witness is an accomplice, though such fact be apparent. Dill v. State, 28 S. W. 950; Carroll v. State, 62 S. W. 1061; Ransonm v. State, 49 S. W. 582; Zollicoffer v. State, 16 Tex. App. 312; Hankins v. State, 47 S. W. Other decisions even later could ......
-
Phillips v. State
...47 S.W. [992], 993; Ransom v. State [Tex.Cr.App.] 49 S. W. 582; Hilton v. State, 41 Tex.Cr.Rep. [190], 191, 53 S.W. 113; Carroll v. State [Tex.Cr.App.] 62 S.W. 1061; Moore v. State, 47 Tex.Cr.R. [410], 414, 83 S.W. 1117; Pace v. State, 58 Tex.Cr.R. [90], 96, 124 S.W. 949; Vails v. State, 59......