Chandler v. State, 25821
| Decision Date | 16 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 25821,25821 |
| Citation | 157 Tex.Crim. 353,248 S.W.2d 736 |
| Parties | CHANDLER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert C. Jackson, Jr., Joe E. Anderson and J. S. Simkins, all of Corsicana, for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is murder; the punishment, twenty-five years.
It was established by an undertaker that deceased had received two bullet wounds, from which she died.
The sheriff testified that, in the course of his investigation of the slaying of deceased, he apprehended appellant; and then we quote from his testimony as follows:
'The Witness: He told me that this gun was at his mother's home.
The sheriff further testified that he recovered the gun from appellant's mother and found one loaded and one empty cartridge near the scene of the homicide, where appellant told them he had thrown them after coming out of the house in which deceased had lived.
Appellant's mother testified, for the State, that, on the night of the homicide, she had occasion to look for her pistol in its accustomed hiding place and discovered that it was missing; that she made inquiry of the appellant; that he went out in the back yard, got the pistol and returned it to her; and that she later turned it over to the sheriff.
A neighbor of deceased testified that he had seen appellant coming into the neighborhood 15 or 20 minutes before deceased was killed.
Appellant did not testify and offered only witnesses as to his reputation.
We find the facts sufficient to support the conviction.
We shall discuss appellant's contentions in the order advanced in his brief.
Bill of exception No. 6 complains that the State was permitted to prove, through a neighbor of deceased, that deceased's daughter, who was at home the night of the homicide, was feeble minded and could not talk or carry on a conversation.
Appellant contends that such proof was tantamount to proving that, if the feeble minded child could have talked, she would have testified to matters hurtful to appellant. We are unable to follow his reasoning, but do observe that the State had the right to explain the non-production of an eye witness to the homicide.
Appellant seeks to complain about a certain telephone conversation had by the deceased on the evening of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bodde v. State
...v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 272, 320 S.W.2d 818 (1958); Martinez v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 244, 306 S.W.2d 131 (1957); Chandler v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 353, 248 S.W.2d 736 (1952). United States v. Malizia, 503 F.2d 578 (2d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 912, 95 S.Ct. 834, 42 L.Ed.2d 843; Unit......
-
Bridges v. State, 29869
...evidence during their deliberations that we are authorized to consider the same in the absence of a bill of exception. Chandler v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 353, 248 S.W.2d 736. The matter not being presented by a bill of exception is not properly before us for review. If the statement complaine......
-
Van Ness v. State, 26620
...proper to explain the failure of the state to produce an eye witness. Hughes v. State, 68 Tex.Cr.R. 584, 152 S.W. 912; Chandler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 248 S.W.2d 736. The failure of the state to introduce the driver of the car as a witness or to explain his absence would have been a proper ......
-
Gonzalez v. State
...case and conducting the prosecution is not properly presented to us for review. Articles 759a and 760e, V.A.C.C.P.; Chandler v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 353, 248 S.W.2d 736. In his charge, the court instructed the jury on the law of accident and also fully instructed them on the appellant's rig......